Ukraine wanted to join NATO but, under Russian pressure, they didn’t. If they would have been part of NATO, would Western soldiers go to war with Russia over Crimea? Would we be OK to send US, Canadian, British soldiers to war with Russia because of Crimea? I can only imagine German troops there…Siege of Sevastopol, part 2. Yes, I know, NATO has agreements, NATO has obligations etc but…even a semi decent politician is a master of finding excuses for not doing what the contract says. If you are a soldier or are drafted, would you kill or die for Ukraine? If there was so much resistance to going to Iraq or Afghanistan, why would Ukraine or Baltic states be different?
Now some fear that the Baltic states may be next. Is it worth going to war with Russia over, say Estonia? Would you die for Latvia?
I am not sure what the “well thought out policy” is or would be in this case, I am not a politician. Maybe due to English being my third language, I am also not sure what the “talking point” is. I am just curious what people think about fighting and dieing for Ukraine etc. So, if you mean do I want to talk about it, then yes. Would I fight for Ukraine, then no. Is this what you mean?
Larger battles have been waged over lesser agreements.
With no imminent threat to its security, England dispatched 100,000+ troops to combat Germany’s advancement on France at the outset of WWI. It was based purely on the notion that the Schlieffen Plan (Germany’s default plan for a two-front war) would require Germany to pass through (but not necessarily engage) Belgium, thus violating an 1839 pact between France, Prussia, and Britain, recognizing Belgium’s absolute neutrality. While the pact authorized British intervention, it certainly did not mandate it. This tenuous logic - i.e. Germany’s encroachment on Belgium, rather than Germany’s aggression against France - became the politically-convenient case for war.
If this is a personal question then the answer is an absolute no. I wouldn’t have died for Viet Nam or Iraq either. Or Estonia or Latvia since I have no connection to any of those countries.
Unlike Iraq, Russia has WMD’s. Nobody would be sending troops into Ukraine for this reason.
Reality - Putin is an ex KGB thug idiot, but I’ll bet he’ll stop after the Crimea since those other countries don’t have Russian majority populations.
I think you may have gotten befuddled by what is happening. Ukraine was not looking to join NATO (at least not any time soon). Ukraine was trying to create closer economic ties (i.e. free trade) with the EU, whereas the Russians were trying to pull it into their economic sphere. NATO, the US, nor any of the other major powers have any military alliances with Ukraine.
The Baltics are a completely different scenario. The are full fledged NATO members. I can hardly imagine a scenario where the Russians would make a play for them - its far too dangerous a gamble for Putin. Its basically a WW3 gamble.
BUT IF the Russians made a play for them and NATO, including the USA, did not respond with absolute resolve, its would mean the end of NATO, an absolutely devastating and embarrassing loss of power for the USA . The USA would go from #1 Superpower to a former-superpower in one fell swoop. Americas allies would seriously doubt the USA ability and will to honour its pacts. The smaller and mid sized nations of the world would look to China, Russia and other powers for alignment.
For 40 years the powerful Soviet Empire tried to crack the NATO alliance in every way possible. NATO always held strong. It would be a sad and pathetic thing NATO fell apart due to a challenge from a weak but belligerent Russia.
I think you may have gotten befuddled by what is happening. Ukraine was not looking to join NATO (at least not any time soon). Ukraine was trying to create closer economic ties (i.e. free trade) with the EU, whereas the Russians were trying to pull it into their economic sphere. NATO, the US, nor any of the other major powers have any military alliances with Ukraine.
The Baltics are a completely different scenario. The are full fledged NATO members. I can hardly imagine a scenario where the Russians would make a play for them - its far too dangerous a gamble for Putin. Its basically a WW3 gamble.
BUT IF the Russians made a play for them and NATO, including the USA, did not respond with absolute resolve, its would mean the end of NATO, an absolutely devastating and embarrassing loss of power for the USA . The USA would go from #1 Superpower to a former-superpower in one fell swoop. Americas allies would seriously doubt the USA ability and will to honour its pacts. The smaller and mid sized nations of the world would look to China, Russia and other powers for alignment.
For 40 years the powerful Soviet Empire tried to crack the NATO alliance in every way possible. NATO always held strong. It would be a sad and pathetic thing NATO fell apart due to a challenge from a weak but belligerent Russia.
^^^^This. Spot on. Failure to honor NATO treaty obligations would be far worse than Neville Chamberlain in 1938.
The Baltics are a completely different scenario. The are full fledged NATO members. I can hardly imagine a scenario where the Russians would make a play for them - its far too dangerous a gamble for Putin. Its basically a WW3 gamble.
The Baltics would be a huge shitstorm too. If anyone thinks Ukranians don’t want to be part of Russia, they don’t know any Baltic people, or anything about history. The Baltic states were basically always wanting out of the USSR, and the first ones to leave when they could. You might ever argue that the Baltics were the reason the USSR fell apart.
Russia would roll in, and if NATO did nothing to stop them, well, it would be worse than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
Anyway, back to the OP’s question: I think there shouldn’t be western (American) soldiers in the first place. Canada, Western Europe? I’m sure most of them know about the Crimean war - 25% of all the French forces died, 33% of the Ottoman forces died, 10% of the UK (inc. Canada, they wern’t independent for 10 more years) forces died.
The Baltics would be a huge shitstorm too. If anyone thinks Ukranians don’t want to be part of Russia, they don’t know any Baltic people, or anything about history. The Baltic states were basically always wanting out of the USSR, and the first ones to leave when they could. You might ever argue that the Baltics were the reason the USSR fell apart.
Am I missing something? This is a hypothetical, right? I don’t recall Putain (ha ha I made a funny) making claims to any of the Baltic countries’ territory? I would assume it would be the other way around (re: Kaliningrad/Königsberg).
I think you may have gotten befuddled by what is happening. Ukraine was not looking to join NATO (at least not any time soon). Ukraine was trying to create closer economic ties (i.e. free trade) with the EU, whereas the Russians were trying to pull it into their economic sphere. NATO, the US, nor any of the other major powers have any military alliances with Ukraine.
The Baltics are a completely different scenario. The are full fledged NATO members. I can hardly imagine a scenario where the Russians would make a play for them - its far too dangerous a gamble for Putin. Its basically a WW3 gamble.
BUT IF the Russians made a play for them and NATO, including the USA, did not respond with absolute resolve, its would mean the end of NATO, an absolutely devastating and embarrassing loss of power for the USA . The USA would go from #1 Superpower to a former-superpower in one fell swoop. Americas allies would seriously doubt the USA ability and will to honour its pacts. The smaller and mid sized nations of the world would look to China, Russia and other powers for alignment.
For 40 years the powerful Soviet Empire tried to crack the NATO alliance in every way possible. NATO always held strong. It would be a sad and pathetic thing NATO fell apart due to a challenge from a weak but belligerent Russia.
This. It is now about obligations, not world policing, or humanitarian reasons. Outside of NATO, you have agreements with Ukraine that must be honored as well, but that damage may have already been done and can be ignored. Who will ever give up a position of power (nuclear weapons, political strength, etc) for peace underwritten by a promise from us. I don’t know. Israel sure won’t.
I fully realize that what Russia has done is against international law. However, they are not enslaving the populous of Crimea. They are ethnic Russians and support the annexing. Strong economic sactions should be imposed strictly because international law was violated. No American lives should be lost for something that the citizens of Crimea support.
If Russia moves against a NATO country the rules change.
Ukraine wanted to join NATO but, under Russian pressure, they didn’t. If they would have been part of NATO, would Western soldiers go to war with Russia over Crimea? Would we be OK to send US, Canadian, British soldiers to war with Russia because of Crimea? I can only imagine German troops there…Siege of Sevastopol, part 2. Yes, I know, NATO has agreements, NATO has obligations etc but…even a semi decent politician is a master of finding excuses for not doing what the contract says. If you are a soldier or are drafted, would you kill or die for Ukraine? If there was so much resistance to going to Iraq or Afghanistan, why would Ukraine or Baltic states be different?
Now some fear that the Baltic states may be next. Is it worth going to war with Russia over, say Estonia? Would you die for Latvia?
It depends on whether you think nations should enter into mutual defense agreements, or whether you think each nation should fend for itself as best it can.
IMO, mutual defense agreements make sense for a couple of reasons. First, twentieth-century history shows if you allow an aggressive nation to start gobbling up other countries, the threat to one’s own country grows greater and greater until you are faced with a horrific worldwide war. Second, the absence of reliable mutual defense agreements necessitates nuclear proliferation. If each nation is going to fend for itself, then it will behoove every country to keep a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Failing to do so was a mistake for which Ukraine is now paying, and I’m sure that countries like Iran will observe and learn from that.
I’m not a military person so hopefully some will chime in here.
There is no question of “Would you die for ?” As military personal you do as ordered unless you believe those orders are somehow against the the law, constitution etc.
As a country we have allies, we make treaties and agreements. Just like any contract we are held to those contracts, or at least should be.
Do I think the US should put more thought into the contracts they sign and agree to, yes, yes and yes. But once we have signed a contract we should stand behind what we’ve written.
We signed a contract with the Ukraine that we would protect them if they themselves demilitarized. They did there part, part of the reason the Russians could simply walk into their country, and we are now bound to hold up our end of the agreement…which once again we will probably not do.
Should we have made such an agreement in the first place? No, probably not. Why any country would get rid of their military and depend on some other country to defend them is beyond me. Why we would volunteer to do the defending is also beyond me.
IMO, mutual defense agreements make sense for a couple of reasons.
While I agree in mutual defense, isn’t this a case where the Ukraine all but dissolved it’s military and we agreed to defend them? I may be wrong on that but that is what I’ve been hearing.
Helping an ally defend themselves is one thing, providing nearly all the protection for a country is another.
IMO, mutual defense agreements make sense for a couple of reasons.
While I agree in mutual defense, isn’t this a case where the Ukraine all but dissolved it’s military and we agreed to defend them? I may be wrong on that but that is what I’ve been hearing.
Helping an ally defend themselves is one thing, providing nearly all the protection for a country is another.
~Matt
I am unaware of any defense guarantees given to the Ukraine by the US. If there were, you can be sure Republicans would have been lambasting Obama for not living up to our obligations. Something like what you’re describing would have required something akin to NATO, and the Russians would have been furious if we had done that with Ukraine…they were already pretty pissed that we let in the Baltics.
IMO, mutual defense agreements make sense for a couple of reasons.
While I agree in mutual defense, isn’t this a case where the Ukraine all but dissolved it’s military and we agreed to defend them? I may be wrong on that but that is what I’ve been hearing.
I know that we signed a pact with them, but I’m not sure what our obligations are supposed to be under that pact.
I am unaware of any defense guarantees given to the Ukraine by the US.
The one I keep hearing being thrown around is the Budapest Memorandum. Again just what I’ve heard being thrown around on various talk shows, which doesn’t mean a whole lot.
The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances is a political agreement signed in Budapest, Hungary on 5 December 1994, providing security assurances by its signatories relating to Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The Memorandum was originally signed by three nuclear powers, the Russian Federation, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom. China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.
The memorandum included security assurances against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine as well as those of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As a result Ukraine gave up the world’s third largest nuclear weapons stockpile between 1994 and 1996.
Following the 2014 Crimean crisis, the U.S., Canada and U.K. all separately stated that Russian involvement is in breach of its obligations to Ukraine under the Budapest Memorandum, and in clear violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity.
~Matt