93 thoughts on “The New Cold War”

  1. “It’s hard to win a war that you pretend you’re not fighting”
    Maybe we shouldn’t be fighting it?
    “The Russian president’s objective is clear. He wants to reassert Russia’s influence in Eastern Europe while preventing NATO’s further expansion toward Russia”
    Russia should not have influence in Eastern Europe? NATO must continue expanding toward Russia?
    I am just not clear why we have an interest in this. Let the United Nations deal with it, if they can.
    Again, I am a friend of freedom everywhere. I just don’t see why centuries-old territorial disputes like the Crimea are our concern.

    1. Would you have said that the Sudentenland is not our concern in the thirties?

      It’s of concern because we offered our guarantee of Ukraine’s safety against Russian imperialism two decades ago in return for their disarming themselves. If we go back on that promise, no one will take our promises seriously in the future, which bodes ill for future diplomacy.

      1. It’s of concern because we offered our guarantee of Ukraine’s safety against Russian imperialism two decades ago in return for their disarming themselves.

        Russia made that commitment to Ukraine, did the US also? link please.

        1. Budapest Memorandum on security assurances to Ukraine, signed by Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Northern Ireland in 1994.

          It protects the integrity of Ukraine’s existing borders.

          2. It’s a memo, not a treaty.

            It’s an executive agreement which in the US is considered politically binding even though it doesn’t satisfy the legal conditions (particularly, approval by a supermajority of the US Senate).

            And once again, we get a glimpse into the peculiar dn_guy worldview. Here, there’s this mysterious assumption that nothing important or binding is ever said in a memo.

      2. we offered our guarantee of Ukraine’s safety against Russian imperialism two decades ago in return for their disarming themselves.

        Not quite right as I read it, the US gave an assurance against US action against Ukraine, not a guarantee of protection against Russian action.

        1. You must’ve skipped provision #2, in which the US will seek immediate action to assist Ukraine if the country becomes a victim of aggression.

          1. Provision #4 says we will “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine”.

            When Russia invaded, we immediately went to the UN. We held up our end of the agreement. What’s the problem?

          2. When Russia invaded, we immediately went to the UN. We held up our end of the agreement. What’s the problem?

            And we’re done, right? Except that Russia hasn’t stopped its invasion. That means the US still has an obligation under this treaty to try to contain and rollback the invasion.

            I suppose backstabbing and cruel betrayal is more certain to undermine one’s credibility. But if everyone gets the idea that the US is going to bail every time it gets challenged or things get slightly difficult, then that’s going to make it extra-special hard for US foreign policy.

          1. Your reading comprehension is again lacking, or have the Russians used nuclear weapons without anyone telling me?

          2. You can play legalese all you want, but I’m pretty sure that the Ukrainians (and others) thought we had their back, and if we don’t we’ve reneged.

          3. … if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

            There’s no good way to parse it so that nuclear weapons are “used” in a threat of aggression (unless someone was self-nuking to show they were serious). So I would take the “or” to mean that all parties guaranteed to help Ukraine if it became a victim of conventional aggression or was threatened with nuclear weapons.

          4. No, wishful thinking on your part, these agreements are drawn up carefully and mean exactly what they say, if the intent had been for the parties to obligate themselves t protect Ukraine from aggression from others that’s exactly what the agreement would have specified, and don’t imagine that the Ukrainian’s were so ignorant as to be unable to read.

          5. So you think they gave up the world’s third largest nuclear arsenal (1,900 warheads) in return for nothing? How dumb do you think they are?

            Here’s an earlier article on the crisis:

            Sir Tony Brenton, who served as British Ambassador from 2004 to 2008, said that war could be an option ‘if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding.’

            It promises to protect Ukraine’s borders, in return for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons.

            Kiev has demanded the agreement is activated after insisting their borders had been violated.

            In response Mr Brenton said in a BBC radio interview: ‘If indeed this is a Russian invasion of Crimea and if we do conclude the [Budapest] Memorandum is legally binding then it’s very difficult to avoid the conclusion that we’re going to go to war with Russia’.

            So the former UK ambassador and the government of the Ukraine have their reading (otherwise they wouldn’t insist that the treaty be “activated”), and you have the DailyKos parsing from a bunch of people who don’t know the meaning of “is”, much less “or”.

          7. George, I don’t understand your argument here. I think it means,
            “if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used, or a threat of the same.” No?
            It can be read two ways. Is it originally in French, or something?

          8. It depends if you read it as:

            if Ukraine should become (a victim of an act of aggression) or (an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used).

            Or as

            if Ukraine should become a victim of an (act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression) in which nuclear weapons are used.

            The trouble is, neither reading can make sense in light of a “threat” of nuclear weapons in which nuclear weapons are actually “used”. If you’re using them, you’re not threatening to use them, you’re using them.

            The treaty is written in English, Russian, and Ukrainian, and all three copies are considered equally valid.

            Also note that it doesn’t say the other signatories shall go to war to defend Ukraine, it says they’ll immediately go to the UNSC, which is really stupid since all three parties (other than Ukraine) have a veto there.

            I feel pretty certain that all parties agreed that there would be intervention if one of the parties violated the agreement and made Ukraine the victim of aggression, because otherwise the memorandum would just mean “We all agree not to invade the Ukraine, unless one of us changes our mind, in which case que sera sera, finders keepers, and all that.”

            You know that the Russian reading of the treaty would be that if the US, UK, or any Western power invaded Ukraine, Russia would consider it an act of war under the memorandum and roll their tanks to Ukraine’s defense.

          9. Sneaky George selectively quoting.

            4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

            That’s no commitment to unilaterally go to war with an aggressor, whichever way the “if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.” is read.

          10. In light of the post above Sorry about the “sneaky George” bit, it’s getting to be a damn nuisance that other peoples comments aren’t coming up immediately on this blog

          11. Provision #4 says we will “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine”.

            When Russia invaded, we immediately went to the UN. We held up our end of the agreement. What’s the problem?

          12. Bob-1, that’s why nobody named Clinton should ever be allowed within 10 miles of an international negotiation. Obviously the Russians weren’t worried that Northern Ireland was going to roll through Europe and seize Ukraine, nor that the US or UK might. But they knew there was a very high likelihood that they might have to intervene in the former Soviet states, especially ones bordering Russia, and especially ones that supply an immense amount of wheat (with fresh memories of constant bread lines) and the major Russian gas transit point to Europe (potentially giving Ukraine an off-switch on Russia’s foreign currency earnings).

            So in the event that Russia had to send tanks into a former Soviet republic, the treaty stipulates that the other signatories would go before the UNSC and ask for a Russian veto on any response to Russia’s move. Clinton thought that was a peachy idea, but of course he only got a 1032 on his SAT, about 200 points lower than George W Bush.

      3. People are sick of war.

        Crimea isn’t the Sudetenland.

        Nobody wants to pay a tax for the war.

        1. People are sick of war.

          People may be sick of war. But they often end up in them anyway. That’s exactly what happened in the lead-up to the Second World War.

          Nobody wants to pay a tax for the war.

          The ultimate “tax” is that you may end up dead.

          The thing I don’t get here is why you think any of your words are relevant. I’ll agree that war is hellishly awful. But for that reason, we should be actively trying to discourage war (right?), rather than merely hoping it doesn’t happen. And one of those things is to impose a cost on the sort of brazen aggressiveness that comes from invading other people willy nilly.

        3. “Crimea isn’t the Sudetenland. ”

          Really…?

          List and describe the differences in the two situations for us which leads you to say that.

    3. “Maybe we shouldn’t be fighting it?”

      Will you say that when the next stop is Poland? Or the constituent parts of the former Yugoslavia?

      Is it your opinion that Putin only wants “so much” and if we give it to him he’ll be satisfied and stop there? Other people had that opinion in the 1930’s. Worked out well.

      Can you guarantee that? Are you willing to personally walk up to a family in those areas and guarantee they aren’t next?

      Try this:

      Suppose enough illegals moved to Arizona such that they were a clear majority…say 60%

      Suppose further that there were demonstrations and the duly elected governor of Arizona was deposed and an illegal was installed.

      Then further suppose that Mexico sends in it’s army and declares that the territory was Mexico’s in the past and that the people who are there now want to once again be a part of Mexico. And further suppose there was going to be a referendum on that next week…..

      You ok with that?

      “Russia should not have influence in Eastern Europe? NATO must continue expanding toward Russia?”

      Influence at the pointy end of a bayonet? With unmarked troops and taking over military and communication centers? Is that how it’s done? Is that the sort of influence that’s ok with you?

      “I am just not clear why we have an interest in this.”

      Because given Putin’s attitude and Russia’s history and Putin’s past moves it’s not worth the risk to let him do this with bayonets.

      “Let the United Nations deal with it, if they can.”

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA HOHOHOHO HA HA HO HA…yeah right. First off the UN is powerless and secondly do you forget who is a permanent member of the Security council and do you also remember that that member has veto power over everything?

    4. ““It’s hard to win a war that you pretend you’re not fighting”
      Maybe we shouldn’t be fighting it?”

      Not fighting doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening. It just means you give up.

      It is sort of like the new space race. People in the US not wanting to participate doesn’t mean the race isn’t taking place.

      Not wanting to get in foreign entanglements is a legitimate position but it has to come with a plan to deal with the fallout. Ignoring everything isn’t a rational course and is just as dangerous as interventions.

  2. These tiny bites are destroying Putin’s relations with former Warsaw Pact nations and other former Soviet States, He gets Crimea, but loses the trust of the rest of Ukraine, which has now taken a leap towards NATO membership This little foray is also deeply unpopular within Russia.
    So Putin is doing an excellent job of destroying the chances of successes of any significant expansionist ambitions he has.
    http://time.com/11952/putin-ukraine-crimea-russia/

    1. I do not know about that. The whole situation is dangerous. I have read comments by people underestimating the capabilities of the Russian military forces. They think this is the same as the mid 90s when their capabilities were degrading. It is not. Russia has successfully invaded Chechnya and Georgia since then. They reduced the size of their military and improved equipment across the board. Their equipment may not be up to the standards of NATO countries but it is good enough to pull of an invasion like this. If he conquers Ukraine successfully the Eastern countries in NATO will start reevaluating their allegiances again. Speeches and sanctions will not be enough. If Russia pulls this off they won’t stop at just Ukraine.

      Comparing it with the Sudetenland invasion is not a stretch at all.

      1. “Their equipment may not be up to the standards of NATO countries but it is good enough to pull of an invasion like this.” “Comparing it with the Sudetenland invasion is not a stretch at all.”
        I’m not following why these two statements don’t contradict each other. Not every crisis is an existential crisis. Do you think France and England are threatened in the long term, or don’t you?

        Again, I belatedly learned this in Iraq. Was it really in our interests to make sure that one set of thugs, Iraq, was crushed, so that another set of thugs, Iran, could become dominant in the region? Well before that, was it really in our interests to make sure that one set of thugs, Iraq, didn’t conquer another set of thugs, Kuwait? Are you so sure that we care which set of thugs rules where?

        1. FYI I was in favor of the first Iraq war. I was not in favor of the second Iraq war. There is nothing wrong with nations having the right to self-determination and self-governance. There is a difference between a defensive war and a war of aggression. You may not agree with their system of government but I am against invading countries for trivial reasons like that.

          For a nation like the US which is a continent away from the remaining world powers there is little immediate justification on national defense terms to get into these wars. Only in the long term would such a war have major impact in the US.

          However there is precedent for an environment like that i.e. the Napoleonic Wars. If Russia got hegemony over parts of Europe they could simply control all commerce over those parts of Europe. In fact the Soviet Union did this back when they had the COMECON.

        2. “Was it really in our interests to make sure that one set of thugs, Iraq, was crushed, so that another set of thugs, Iran, ”

          We were already in a de facto state of war with Iraq. They were attacking us on a regular basis and we were attacking them on a regular basis. A million people died due to oil for food. We gave them the chance to unravel that situation and they chose not to.

          In a world where you don’t give a shit what other countries do, then why care what we do?

          1. So are you glad that Iran is now the hegemon in that area? We spent a trillion dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, and we may have actually made everything worse on the whole, with all our good intentions. President Bush had the chance to really fix some of the United States’ problems, a conservative majority, and we poured it all out on the sands of Iraq. The world is full of awful people doing awful things. We are not the policeman. It is beyond our powers and beyond our resources. Unless you think we should demand tribute: perpetual war for perpetual peace.
            I care as much as the next person. I just don’t see how anyone who really pays attention thinks that we can help.

          2. I think that Bush threw away a huge strategic opportunity in the Middle East with the successful takeover of Iraq. I thought he and Cheney knew what they were doing. I was wrong.

          3. Yeah. Sigh. I have a very bright son who grew up enough to get interested in politics in time for the Obama phase of the Afghanistan war. He is an expert in the details of the various tribes and who is fighting whom. He has had a paper accepted by a noted think tank in the field.
            So anyhow, he kept asking me why don’t they do this, do I support them doing that. I kept telling him, I did all that over the Iraq conflict. It’s all going to come to nothing. Eventually the US will get tired of what they’re doing, or the politics will change, and they’ll pull out, and the Taliban will still be there. Probably everyone who helped us will run for their lives if they’re lucky.
            So by now he knows I’m right. I learned it via the Iraq War, he through this one. But the one who was really right was Jerry Pournelle, who said the same things before the first Iraq War. We have no interests there, and we’re not going to actually help anyone. Remember how we left the Kurds hanging out to dry?
            The US rules the world, but we can’t afford to pay for it, won’t charge for it, and don’t want the job. The United Nations rules the world, but it’s run by corrupt dictators and a Security Council where Russia and China have a veto.
            So no one rules the world, and there is no policeman, and we get these occasionally bursts of enthusiasm over this atrocity or that one. We then all mobilize and crush some dictator who will be replaced by someone just as bad.
            Someday maybe it will be different. But that’s how it is today. Sorry.

      2. “The whole situation is dangerous. ”

        It most certainly is. And we have a retard in the White House.

          2. If we have a revolution like Ukraine’s, then people would be able to flock to see the Vice President’s house and gaze in awe and wonderment upon his VHS collection of every episode of “Sponge Bob Square Pants.”

      3. “If Russia pulls this off they won’t stop at just Ukraine.”

        The question is, where is the next low lying fruit? Smart diplomacy would have Russia’s potential targets mapped out and plans in place to thwart or delay Russia. Too bad our current leaders practice full retard diplomacy.

        1. The question is, where is the next low lying fruit?

          Looking at a map, and excluding NATO countries and putting aside the rest of Ukraine, maybe a couple of provinces in Kazakhstan with Russian majorities? They don’t look that tempting though.

          3. Andrew,

            Ah so you are one of those who figure that Obama will gird his loins and go to war with Russia over Lithuania?

            In fact Putin might just decide the opportunity to demonstrate that NATO is a hollow shell with no serious intention to go to war unless it’s for France or Germany and possibly Poland.

            Just imagine the position Putin would be in if he swiped one of the Baltics and got away with it…..

          4. I’m pretty sure Putin wouldn’t risk an attack on a NATO country, the USSR never did, and Russia is far weaker than the Soviet Union, and European NATO is stronger, by most measures, than Russia, who needs Obama?

          6. Military spending, troop numbers, total population, combined GDP and per head income.

            How do you measure “will against aggression” and what makes Russia stronger on that “measure”?

          7. “I’m pretty sure Putin wouldn’t risk an attack on a NATO country, the USSR never did,

            Andrew it’s one thing to roll West from Poland, East Germany and the Balkans into France and Germany. That WOULD provoke a response especially since we had Presidents who knew the score. That sort of move could result in nuclear war. The USSR knew that.

            It’s quite another to gobble up Estonia. No one is going to lob nukes over Estonia.

            “and Russia is far weaker than the Soviet Union, and European NATO is stronger, by most measures, than Russia, who needs Obama?”

            You do – if you want NATO to go to war with Russia. NATO will not go to war with Russia without the US and President Mom-Jeans won’t go to war with Russia over Estonia.

            Putin knows this.

            I asked you a question and you didn’t answer:

            Andrew – be honest – do you REALLY think Obama would go to war with Russia…

            GO. TO. WAR. WITH. RUSSIA

            …over Estonia?

            Tell us what you really think.

          8. He wouldn’t be going to war over Estonia, it would be a war over NATO’s integrity, that’s something Putin wouldn’t risk.

        1. Earlier you wrote:

          “Crimea isn’t the Sudetenland. ”

          And I replied:

          Really…?

          List and describe the differences in the two situations for us which leads you to say that.

          Still waiting for that list and description.

          1. All right, I’ll take a crack at that:

            1. Sudetenland was an entire border region, whereas Crimea is a much smaller, isolated peninsula.
            2. Sudetenland didn’t contain Germany’s only warm water port with a 40 year lease.
            3. Hitler was an avowed fascist and anti-Semite: Putin is against the anti-Semitic neo-fascists embodied by the Svoboda and Right Sector parties.
            4. The Sudetenland was batting practice for taking over most of Europe; there is little evidence that Putin wants to take over most of Europe.
            5. Outfits like Svoboda and Right Sector really are dangerous; the people running Czechoslovakia were not.

            If we’re going to reason by historical analogy, the episode we should be looking at IMO is the Beer Hall Putsch: except in this case the thugs won. Western Ukraine will continue in its collective amnesia WRT it’s role in WWII; there never has been a real Vergangenheitsbewältigung, and now there definitely won’t be. There is a potential danger that the Kiev Putsch will encourage other neo-fascist groups throughout Europe; and the Ukrainian example provides a roadmap on how to seize power by bypassing the democratic process. The danger in Estonia is not Putin; it is that it could be taken over by neo-fascist cadres: cf. the Annual Estonian Midsummer Waffen SS Festival.

    2. Well, with Crimea in the hands of Russia, Ukraine could join NATO since one of the requirements is that no NATO country host a Russian military base. But is it a wise decision to have Ukraine in NATO? Kiev is the birthplace of Russia. Letting Ukraine into NATO would be a significant escalation not deescalation. And it is folly to look at foreign affairs as a popularity contest.

  3. Democrats fantasize that nothing is happening. Republicans fantasize that nuclear brinksmanship is necessary. Neither is helpful. We need leaders who exhibit the right combination of forthrightness, sophistication, and tact. But with the mouthbreathers in office today we might as well be asking for a politician who understands quantum mechanics.

    1. As a followup, Reagan wasn’t interested in annihilating the soviets but he did have the guts to speak plainly about their oppression. As for Putin, I don’t think it’s at all beneficial to send in troops or start a war in crimea or any such thing. All that is necessary is enough straight talk to reveal to the world what he truly is and a combination of public and behind the scenes support for people standing up to him to make his blunders more manifest. Much of Putin’s power rests on his image, a sophisticated and powerful adversary could destroy that image quite easily.

    2. The trouble is, Crimea has always been an autonomous republic (uniquely for Ukraine) with its own independent parliament, and that parliament has just voted to split from the Ukraine and join the Russian Federation. Part of the US position since Wilson (who was pretty bad at following the principle) has been that various regions could democratically decide which country they would belong to, as opposed to being forced into the wrong country to satisfy the geopolitical ambitions of the rulers of remote empires.

      If the mass protests, violence, and Russian response hadn’t preceded the vote of the Crimean Parliament to switch flags, would anyone other than some Ukrainians have even chirped against the idea?

      1. Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. – Stalin

        At Yalta Stalin agreed as a compromise with the US that the countries in Eastern Europe could decide on their own fate by plebiscite. With Soviet troops occupying those countries they managed to swing the elections and policies the way they wanted to and the result was the Cold War. With Russian troops controlling Crimea do you think that parliament was not under duress?

        Then there is the simple fact that the Ukrainian constitution does not allow for a province to spontaneously decide to break away from Ukrainian control. Back when you people had your Civil War in the XIXth century did you just let the South break away from the US? No country in their right mind would allow for a region to split out.

        FWIW there is more cultural diversity inside Russia proper yet Putin is not interested in letting them split out at all.

      2. And that’s why sophistication is required here and not just bluster. Realistically the Crimea should rejoin with Russia. The problem is that Putin putting troops into the Crimea was completely unjustified. If we had someone who knew what they were doing they’d be embarrassing the shit out of Putin for this reckless move while also calling for a referendum on Crimean independence from Ukraine or reunification with Russia.

      3. I agree it’s a bit dodgy, but it gives Putin a lot of political cover because he can now argue that he’s just helping the Crimean people assert their independence from a government that’s no longer representing their interests. Less than 30% of the population of Crimea is Ukrainian. He could also point out that Ukraine’s borders were an artifact of the Czars, and that in the Soviet Union the real borders were largely irrelevant anyway, and thus never got much attention or thought, and that during the break-up of the Soviet Union various border questions weren’t really revisited, leading to the sloppy mistake of not realizing that Crimea was full of ethnic and nationalistic Russians who didn’t fit in with Ukraine.

        So within Russia, having Putin “liberate” Crimea could well be seen as completely logical, rational, sensible, and proper – correcting a silly mistake that put the peninsula on the wrong side of a post-Soviet map.

        The Sudetenland seizure was also explained away in just such terms, and most of Europe acquiesced to the logic and inevitability of it, since three million Germans seemed to be living on the wrong side of a boundary line. Hitler started with land grabs that were the easiest to justify. What everybody fears is that Putin is following in his footsteps, becoming more and more assertive and expansionist as they fill the vacuum of power created by the vacuum between Obama’s ears.

    3. ” Republicans fantasize that nuclear brinksmanship is necessary.”

      Where do you get such stupid ideas? Who said that? When were nukes every brought up?

      sheesh.

    4. “Republicans fantasize that nuclear brinksmanship is necessary.”

      What? Who is saying we need to nuke Russia?

      1. Brinksmanship is not open nuclear aggression. Nuclear deterrence is an important part of dealing with Russia but at this point it’s the height of unsophistication and utterly unnecessary to make a point of it.

  4. My impression is we could crush Russia in an economic war … if we got rid of the leftard idiocy holding us back from being an economic powerhouse and world energy giant. An economy dependent on exports, such as Russia and the mideast dependent on oil, is inherently at risk if their customers get their act together and develop independent resources. Or if their customer’s economy collapses, as will eventually happen if the US and Europe don’t throw off leftard idiocy.

  5. I think the Cold War is over. I think being concern about Russia is something which has been a concern
    for centuries and could continue for centuries.
    China has always been a concern of Russia, and that will continue.

    The US could have better political leadership- and having good political leadership is the best
    solution to these types of problems.
    It seems likely Europe and US will continue to have poor leadership which eventually will lead
    to crisis. That Russia and China will have poor leadership goes without saying.

    So it seems what should done about, is not elect people like Obama. We might head in that direction
    in near future, but after a while we may go back again to electing the Obama and Carter type presidents.
    The only long term solution is doing something else. So for libertarian, like Rand Paul:
    http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/03/09/why-rand-paul-is-winning/
    “Speaking of which, as I wrote last week, defense is Paul’s potential Achilles’ heel. He has to figure out how to negotiate his libertarian principles in an obstreperous world that, most of the time anyway, couldn’t care less about them. On a planet occupied by the likes of Vladimir Putin and Ayatollah Khamenei, he needs a foreign policy that doesn’t sound like naive wish fulfillment. Barack Obama already checked that box.”
    I would suggest opening the space frontier. As one can apply libertarian principles to this, and play to your strong suit. And by doing so, actually addresses these foreign policy issues.
    So not suggesting any leader should ignore foreign policy, but rather suggesting where we want to put our “energies”.
    Or since it would counterproductive for Rand Paul to increase military spending, he should attempt to put the nation’s “energies” elsewhere. So not some huge NASA budget increase- or Military increase,
    but basically some NASA budget increase, and not a decrease in Military. But main focus is involving
    the private sector.
    Socialism cannot open the space frontier. Free Markets can open the space frontier.
    So NASA exploring the Moon in order to find minable water. And then NASA exploring Mars.
    So some increase in NASA budget is mostly about getting NASA to move faster and keeping it
    focus on what it should be focused on.
    Also one do prizes in a big way.
    One thing I mentioned is for government to buy water test payloads- this in terms of government
    spending is very cheap- less than Obama spent building a web site that did not work.
    One can do zero tax in space. One could do many things which libertarian related to opening
    space frontier. Most of “new space” is bunch of libertarians.

  7. Russia is not the aggressor here–they are responding to US aggression. Ukraine gave up their nukes and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded: for thanks we added Poland and the Baltic states to NATO.

    It’s been admitted that we spent $5 billion on largely neo-Nazi opposition groups to instigate a coup against an elected government. Obama says there will be a cost for Russian adventurism; but of course, Putin must be thinking the same thing WRT American adventuring. The price for meddling in Ukranian politics is the Crimea. The technical term for this is “blowback”–the unintended consequences of our stupid decisions. Keep in mind that the Crimea was literally given to Ukrain by Khrushchev (who was born in Ukraine) as a birthday present. 60% of the people there speak Russian as their first language. The referendum in a few days will no doubt vote for joining the Russian Federation. More, annexing Crimea does not violate international law, Obama’s assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

    The invocation of Godwin’s Law–that Putin is the new Hitler, and that Crimea is the new Sudetenland–is a hysterical fantasy. We screwed up by backing a pack of neoNazi brownshirt Molotov tossing streetfighting skinheads to the tune of $5 billion, and now we’re paying the price. (And am I the only one that finds it ironic that everyone compares Putin to Hitler, when the more a propos comparison would be with Tyahnybok?!?)

    The only decent option is BOHICA at this point, and try and learn our lesson that our hamhanded attempts to control world history don’t work. The Libertarian(!) Rand Paul has it right: we should not be endlessly “tweaking” Putin. It doesn’t work. Economic sanctions will indeed boomerang. Russia provides Europe with 30% of their natural gas. And Europe is not the only customer: they can sell all the hydrocarbons they produce to China.

    We should butt the f*** out IMHO. I thought this was a Libertarian website. Yes, there are arguments for confronting Russia over Crimea, but none of these, by definition, can be construed as Libertarian arguments.

  8. Democracy gets good PR but the puddin’ doesn’t seem to contain the proof. The advantage it has over kingdoms is that good kings die to be replaced by whatever. (King Obama? [shudders])

    I’m surprised Putin waited so long. I expected him to act within a couple of years of Georgia. There was never really any question of going into the Crimea, only when. I said it many times to my ex after Georgia.

    The similarities with Hitler are startling and I’m surprised the media isn’t making it at every turn (yeah even that commie media.) Putin will give a Russian passport to almost anyone in the ‘near abroad’ so he can then claim to be protecting Russian citizens… exactly what Hitler did. Simpheropol and Sevastopol are significant resources. With this capture watch Putin put more emphasis on getting Turkey to play along.

    If you want to know where he’s going next, watch the passports.

  9. The more I think about it, the more I believe Putin is going to go for one of the Baltics.

    Perhaps Estonia?

    As I commented earlier, does anyone here think that Obama would gird his loins and go war with NATO over Estonia?

    I don’t.

    Does anyone here think the Europeans would?

    I don’t.

    And so Putin cracks NATO at what cost?

    Because if Putin got away with taking one of the Baltics, then the rest of the NATO members such as Poland or Hungary, would now know that the NATO defense treaty isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Furthermore they might conclude that NATO would only go to war to defend Germany and France…much the same way as Germany and France call the shots for the EU. So then Poland et al might think that in reality they are on their own. Maybe it’s time to cut deals with Russia.

    It would be a gutsy move (as opposed to what Choo-Choo Biden thinks is a gutsy call), but the possible winnings for Putin are colossal. Still, the next guy in the White House may have a pair. And Putin knows that the retarded clown that’s there now will pee his pants.

    So why not do it while the doing is easy?

    1. NATO’s leaders are well aware of the importance of the treaty and the cost of not meeting the mutual defense obligations it entails. Putin is also aware of just how tight the members are.
      I think your speculation ignores these realities.

  10. “NATO’s leaders are well aware of the importance of the treaty and the cost of not meeting the mutual defense obligations it entails. Putin is also aware of just how tight the members are.
    I think your speculation ignores these realities.”

    I don’t think those are the realities. Not for the Baltics anyway.

    Seriously, Andrew – be honest – you really think Obama would go to war against over Estonia?

    Really?

    1. I *honestly* believe Obama would go to war over an attack any NATO nation, including the three Baltic nations, including Slovenia and Croatia, etc. If there is a second class nation in NATO at all, it might be Turkey, but I hope not.

      Since you’re so incredulous, I’ll spell it out: to defend Estonia, I think Obama would use nuclear weapons on Moscow if necessary, with all the world-changing dire consequences that would follow. I think this is also true of all people who might have plausibly become the US President in our era (eg Dole, Romney, Gore, Mondale, Dukakis, etc). I think this because I believe NATO is the cornerstone of US foreign policy.

      Anyway, this was all hashed out in 2010:
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-cables-nato-russia-baltics

      1. Sorry, that didn’t come out as clearly as I wanted.
        Key ideas:

        1) all NATO countries are under our nuclear umbrella, including the newest members.

        2) All US presidents and candidates would behave the same way. For example, pretend Carter was in office today. I believe that Carter,like Obama, would go as far as nuking Moscow to defend Estonia — thats how important NATO is, in my opinion.

        2. Agree with Bob about NATO being the cornerstone of US defense policy, I doubt that the US would be the first to use nukes. Would Obama deploy the USAF against a Russian attack on a NATO country? Absolutely, no US president that I can recall has failed to use the military against an inferior foe if US national interests are at stake.

          1. I didn’t mean to suggest that we’d be the first to use nukes, particularly against cities. I just wanted to illustrate my belief that the USA would be willing to escalate as was necessary to support NATO in its primary mission of treating an attack on any member state as an attack against them all.

          2. ” Absolutely, no US president that I can recall has failed to use the military against an inferior foe if US national interests are at stake.”

            That’s not much of a statement since our “national interests’ are highly debated, and in the case of Obama, flexible.

            I replied to a bit of thread above and I don’t know if you’ll see it so I’ll give you the short form here:

            It was one thing for the USSR to roll West from Poland, East Germany and the Balkans into West Germany and France. The US WOULD go to war in that case and it would get to nukes before too long. The USSR knew this. The USSR would be attacking the “principles” in the NATO organization and we had Presidents who knew the score. So the USSR was deterred.

            It’s another thing entirely to snap up Estonia. US lib-dems will say Estonia is not in our national interest just as they are saying that about Crimea – you can read it here.

        3. 1) all NATO countries are under our nuclear umbrella, including the newest members.

          Bob, President Mom-Jeans will not lob nukes over Estonia. Nukes are a non-issue in this case. Everyone knows this including Putin.

        4. “I believe that Carter,like Obama, would go as far as nuking Moscow to defend Estonia”

          I believe you haven’t a clue as to the nature of Obama.

          1. I provided evidence for my position: 1) there are specific NATO plans to defend the Baltic states, plans which were intended to remain secret, plans which the Obama administration pushed for. I provided the link. 2) Very public statements by NATO leaders (Obama, Merkel) that Article 5 of the NATO treaty covers the Baltics. Google NATO and the Baltics see them.

            The only evidence you provided for your position is a reference to “mom jeans”. I don’t know or care about clothing, but if it is relevant to foreign policy, I guess I’m curious: what are mom jeans anyway? Are you implying a mom (like Margaret Thatcher) can’t be a strong leader? Are you implying that a jeans-wearing mom (like Sarah Palin) couldn’t be a commander-in-chief?

          2. “I provided evidence for my position:

            Your evidence is not evidence.

            “1) there are specific NATO plans to defend the Baltic states,”

            Big whoop. We have plans to invade everywhere but it doesn’t mean we are going to do it.

            “2) Very public statements by NATO leaders (Obama, Merkel) that Article 5 of the NATO treaty covers the Baltics. Google NATO and the Baltics see them. ”

            Again big whoop – those are words.

            I’ll ask you the same question I asked Andrew directly (and have not gotten a direct answer):

            Do you honestly think that Obama would send the US to war against Russia to push them out of Estonia?

            TO. WAR. AGAINST. RUSSIA.

            Do you really?

            Your failure to understand the metaphor of “Mom-Jeans” is neither here nor there.

          3. I already gave you as clear as an answer as I thought possible, but here is my answer again; Yes. Yes, I honestly think that Obama would send the US to war against Russia to push them out of Estonia — because Estonia is a member of NATO, the most successful and powerful and, most importantly, the most righteous military alliance the world has ever known. An attack on Estonia is no different from an attack on London or New York, and the NATO alliance will respond with vigor and fury to any such attack.

          4. (Not that there are not other righteous military alliances. It is just that NATO has created the most liberty for the most people, ever.)

          5. ” Yes. Yes, I honestly think that Obama would send the US to war against Russia to push them out of Estonia”

            I disagree. If Putin also disagrees it will be a rough time for one or more of the Baltics. But at least you clearly answered the question.

            ” because Estonia is a member of NATO, the most successful and powerful and, most importantly, the most righteous military alliance the world has ever known. ”

            “Righteous”? Are you crazy? Righteousness, dear fellow, is in the eye of the beholder.

            ” An attack on Estonia is no different from an attack on London or New York, …………..”

            It isn’t? Well that’s very interesting…..

            “It is just that NATO has created the most liberty for the most people, ever”

            Muddled thinking. Military alliances do not create liberty. Liberty exists. Military alliances can, at times, create the conditions for people to grasp and exercise their liberty. Although you might have to lose some sovereignty to attain that. They also equally often destroy liberty (Warsaw Pact).

          6. I’ll ask you the same question I asked Andrew directly (and have not gotten a direct answer):

            My reply must have been too cryptic for you.

            Do you honestly think that Obama would send the US to war against Russia to push them out of Estonia?

            YES.

  11. And now Central (parts of it) and Eastern Yerp sees the light (in fact they always have) – this would remove a primary bit of leverage from Russia:

    “Europe calls for more US natural gas exports”

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/200350-european-nations-call-for-more-us-natural-gas-exports

    “Ambassadors from Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia wrote to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) urging congressional action to fast-track natural gas exports to allies in Central and Eastern Europe.”

    Naturally I and several others here said this is a primary and necessary step at the very outset of the Ukrainian Incursion. Obama should have done this on Day Two of the incursion. And these excerpts from the article are some of the reasons we gave:

    “As events in Ukraine bring back the memories of the Cold War, from which all of our countries suffered terribly, we are writing to highlight the overall importance of U.S. engagement in Central and Eastern Europe, and more specifically in the area of energy security and reliable supply of natural gas,” the letter states.
    …………….
    With recent infrastructural investments in Central and Eastern Europe, it became possible to build “reverse gas flows”, which have allowed sending gas from Poland and Hungary to Ukraine at a cheaper price than what Ukrainians had to pay, the letter sent to Boehner and Reid on Friday states.

    “As a result, in 2013 alone, Ukraine imported almost 2 billion cubic meters of natural gas from Poland and Hungary. Reverse flow capabilities could be further enlarged and a potential Slovak-Ukrainian direction could be added.”

    So there you have it folks. Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary are asking for help to remove Russian leverage/power from their lives.

    I note that Western Yerp is not aggressively fracking away at the new finds they have made – which would be the smart move both geo-politically and economically. So they still live in the Unicorn world of Green-Stupidity….let the US foul their eco-system – we’ll use the gas.

    What will Obama do? He screwed them on missile defense…will he turn his back on them once more?

    And Andrew et. al. take note:

    If Obama does not do this – clearly much less of a major move than war with Russia – you still so sure he’d go to war over Estonia? Poland is a NATO member..isn’t it? And Slovakia….Hungary etc.

  12. Kerry and Obama’s exclamations that Putin has forgotten this is the 21st century and that Putin is behaving as a 19th century ruler are egregiously stupid. I find it difficult to formulate the words that adequately describe just how stupid they are.

    But fortunately, better writers than I found a way. I give you Victor Davis Hanson:

    http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/putin-is-everything-and-more-but-not-stupid/2/

    “Putin thinks that if the EU and the U.S. were in agreement to punish aggression, if Iraq were stable and garrisoned, if Afghanistan were the same, if Libya were calm, if the Benghazi murderers were in chains, if Egypt were working, if Iran were giving up its nuclear weapons, and if Syria were free of Assad, then it might be a questionable risk to steal the Crimea. But given they are not, what we think is dumb for him is not so much.

    Instead, smart for Putin is adding territory for Russia and whipping up public opinion. Smart is warning the Baltic states or western Ukraine or Georgia to behave or they might be next, given his own unpredictability and feigned nihilism. Smart is reminding China, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela that if they wanted to do something similar in their own backyards, there might follow a force-multiplying effect that would benefit all those suffering America’s conceit. Smart for Putin is reminding the Russian people that the world damns, but privately admires, their strongman who with very little resources has achieved global influence and clout at stronger powers’ expense.

    That we think a dictator is acting stupidly, or that history will agree some day that a dictator was acting stupidly, means neither that he believes he is or that he cares, or that in the here and now such perceptions matters much. The Poles of Warsaw or the Jews of Kraków did not care much in 1939 that Hitler’s invasion was really stupid for Germany’s long-term interest and would soon eventually be proven so.

    Stupid is thinking otherwise.”

    Oh my…he mentions the Baltics…..

Comments are closed.