Dying For Montenegro

[_Chap]

Let's take the positions expressed by two posters on this board as an expression of the thoughts of members of the US military. (Yup, I know that it is an immense oversimplification to think that all persons in the armed forces of the US, or any other country, whatever their rank or experience, basically share some kind of groupthink, but let's go with that, OK? Because, reasons.) So we have an opposition between two viewpoints:

1: Governments of most advanced democratic countries
Military forces are, for the most part, viewed by governments as being required as an indispensable auxiliary to the pursuit and protection of national interests, whether in terms of foreign policy or economic interests. The larger the country, the wider the field over which such deployment may be required. In the case of the US, that field is effectively world-wide. In the last resort, and very rarely over the last half century or more, they may be needed to repel attacks on the government's home territory.

2: The view of members of the US military, as expressed here
The military provides a career that they find suits their life situation, qualifications, and tastes (one poster has in the past said that pretty explicitly). No doubt some join for purely patriotic and idealistic reasons, but such people are rare under the circumstances of the last half century or more. In the last analysis they accept as a general principle that their government may send them to places where doing their job may have fatal consequences, but they have a much more limited vision of when that is justifiable. While they are mostly not naïve enough to think that they should only be deployed to resist (say) a Russian incursion into Alaska, they don't like the idea of having to risk combat unless the threat to national interests is very direct and immediate.

How might this contradiction be resolved?

(a) Governments could decide to greatly limit the wider use of military force as an instrument to protect national political and economic interests. Not very likely, given the way the world works. Such a view would, of course, lead to large and (for many) painful cuts in military expenditure, and the termination of many chosen careers.

(b) Pending or absent a decision such as (a), then since there is no compulsion to join the US military at present, nor has there been for some time, persons who are not willing to be part of military forces that may be deployed for purposes determined by their government but not involving an immediate national threat might decide to choose another career.

[Guest]

If you look at the former Eastern Bloc countries that now are a part of NATO, want to join NATO, or are basically big-brothered in by NATO due to borders abutting you can understand why gelding Russia was the impetus behind Crimea.
- Doc

Crimea has been very important to Russia for centuries. It was only given to Ukraine when it was basically a province of the USSR. I can see Putin maybe invaded it when he did due to worries about Ukraine joining NATO. It's also a territory easy to hold since most of the population speaks Russian and is friendly to Russia.

What's the practical value, in 2018, of continuing to present an aggressive and hostile stance toward Russia where, if Ukraine is allowed to join NATO it'll most likely spark another invasion by Russian to take eastern Ukraine, and either dividing it like Germany was, or sparking all out war

Putin knows NATO is not a offensive alliance and that they would never invade Russia. For Putin it's about Russian power in the world, and NATO is very much in the way of some of his major interests. Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO until it;s issues with Russia are resolved and settled between them and NATO countries. Russia has already invaded eastern Ukraine even if they still deny it like they did Crimea. I suspect they will stay there until they can get Ukraine to agree to new borders.

Do you want to spend another $4T and probably tens of thousands of lives on a NATO country that's no where near the North Atlantic?

The US hasn't spent a trillion dollars on any NATO country and has benefited economically over half a century from peace and security NATO and other alliances have provided.

I have two girls serving in the Navy right now and I'd prefer they not die for another Iraq.

It had nothing to do with NATO and it was from Republican thinking about destroying potential threats and maybe even more from a certain President really wanting to bring down a certain dictator. It was a mess that could be foreseen and most NATO countries wisely said no.

So. You know. Montenegro is just setup for the larger discussion about our future and whether or not you're willing to bleed when the US adds the Congo to NATO because it has yet another paranoid geopolitical aim to counter, say in this case, Chinese incursion into Africa. When is enough enough, and when do we stop shi ting out national treasury for other nations when we gots potholes ta fill n' crap?

Really unlikely in the foreseeable future, and the US has not had to spend it's national treasure on NATO allies. Iraq was US aggression without thought and as a result a lot of blood and money was lost. Especially by the Iraqi people. The US spends way more then they need to on unnecessary military and other things that could easily be used to fill potholes, but wasting money on military is a US tradition. We shouldn't mess with tradition should we?

I would add that another reason the US enters military alliances around the world even with countries like Japan and south Korea is nuclear proliferation. It's very important to try and keep nukes out of the hands of as many nations as possible. Japan and South Korea would certainly have them by now if the US had not promised to protect them, and promoting peace in the world is a huge necessity for US security and well being. Pakistan and India hate each other and if they get in an all out nuclear war, loss of American life will be high.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Themis,

My comment about 4T was in reference to a war in Ukraine, if they joined NATO and we were obligated to defend them.

- Doc

[_Themis]

Themis,

My comment about 4T was in reference to a war in Ukraine, if they joined NATO and we were obligated to defend them.

- Doc

I don't think though there is any chance they will get in NATO until after there is some settlement with Russia and their borders. in my opinion I think this is why Ukraine was not brought in well before Crimea was invaded. They probably knew this was a line in the sand for Russia

[_Chap]

My comment about 4T was in reference to a war in Ukraine, if they joined NATO and we were obligated to defend them.

I don't think though there is any chance [Ukraine] will get in NATO until after there is some settlement with Russia and their borders. in my opinion I think this is why Ukraine was not brought in well before Crimea was invaded.

Yup. That point is so obvious that it is frankly weird that you found yourself in a position where you needed to state it.

[_Morley]

I think he's suggesting more of an America-first policy that probably walks back the State Department's overreach. ...[snip]... When is enough enough, and when do we stop shi ting out national treasury for other nations when we gots potholes ta fill n' crap?

Thanks, Cam. I'm swamped now, but will try to get a reply to this--this weekend.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

My comment about 4T was in reference to a war in Ukraine, if they joined NATO and we were obligated to defend them.

I don't think though there is any chance [Ukraine] will get in NATO until after there is some settlement with Russia and their borders. in my opinion I think this is why Ukraine was not brought in well before Crimea was invaded.

Yup. That point is so obvious that it is frankly weird that you found yourself in a position where you needed to state it.

So weird that Ukraine was going to join back in 2010 (08?) but their President elect put the brakes on it. Silly move because had they joined at that point in history they might've retained Crimea.

But yeah. Hurt durr the point was so, so clear.

- Doc

[_Chap]

Neither Nato, nor the EU, are stupid or reckless organisations. They know the difference between providing support to Ukraine at the 'don't push your luck, Russia' level, and assuming unconditional defence obligations.

Juncker Says Ukraine Not Likely To Join EU, NATO For 20-25 Years

It will take Ukraine at least 20 to 25 years to join the European Union and NATO, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said March 3 [2016].

"Ukraine will definitely not be able to become a member of the EU in the next 20 to 25 years, and not of NATO either," he said in a speech at The Hague.

While Juncker did not explain why Ukraine would have to wait so long, his speech was aimed at reassuring Dutch voters that this year's free-trade agreement between Ukraine and the EU was not a first step toward quickly joining the European Union.

Despite his prediction, the EU has been paving the way for visa-free travel to the bloc for Ukrainian citizens while providing Kyiv with a generous $40 billion bailout along with the United States and the International Monetary Fund to help it maintain economic stability amid a war with Russia-backed separatists.

NATO also sent a reassuring message to Ukraine last year by holding military exercises there in a show of force against Russia, which has repeatedly denounced the alliance's eastern expansion as a threat to its national security.

But Juncker's comments suggest that Ukraine's ambition to join Europe, frequently expressed by leaders in Kyiv, will not be fulfilled anytime soon.

Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty includes these words:

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty.

Does anybody believe that, given the geopolitical situation of Ukraine and the wider situation in relation to Russia and its neighbours, the unanimous consent of all 29 Nato members to the accession of Ukraine is likely in the foreseeable future?

If so, by all means let us continue this discussion, perhaps with an explanation of when and why this consent is likely to be given. If not, maybe we might cease to waste our time on this point?

[_Morley]

Morley,

I have no idea what compels you to make an absurd statement or jump to a conclusion that would make even Greg Louganis envious, but I can tell you that the US government generally works toward its own interests, just like virtually every other government does.

????

Weird.

- Doc

eta: I also find it concerning you think yourself so amazing that you'd not "allow" another sovereign entity to function autonomously. Phew. That is hubris.

I'm not arguing against allowing another sovereign to function autonomously or act in their own interests. I'm talking about the US and other countries trying to stop nations from invading each other.

[_Morley]

Doc- I may be misreading him, but I think Dog is arguing for an isolationist foreign policy. However awkwardly, I'm questioning the implications of said policy.

I think he's suggesting more of an America-first policy that probably walks back the State Department's overreach. If you look at the former Eastern Bloc countries that now are a part of NATO, want to join NATO, or are basically big-brothered in by NATO due to borders abutting you can understand why gelding Russia was the impetus behind Crimea, their current comments on Sweden & Finland, and their efforts to destabilize us through political machinations. What's the practical value, in 2018, of continuing to present an aggressive and hostile stance toward Russia where, if Ukraine is allowed to join NATO it'll most likely spark another invasion by Russian to take eastern Ukraine, and either dividing it like Germany was, or sparking all out war?

Do you want to spend another $4T and probably tens of thousands of lives on a NATO country that's no where near the North Atlantic? I have two girls serving in the Navy right now and I'd prefer they not die for another Iraq.

So. You know. Montenegro is just setup for the larger discussion about our future and whether or not you're willing to bleed when the US adds the Congo to NATO because it has yet another paranoid geopolitical aim to counter, say in this case, Chinese incursion into Africa. When is enough enough, and when do we stop shi ting out national treasury for other nations when we gots potholes ta fill n' crap?

- Doc

I agree that the US needs to reduce military expenditures and spend its coin on healthcare, infrastructure, and reducing national debt. I'd like to see defense cut by a third. I don't think that we can do that by withdrawing from defense treaties--unless we're going to become post-WWI-type isolationists. We need allies to take up the slack.

edit to add: It's pretty easy to imagine Trump, sans NATO, assuming Chamberlain's mantle when confronted with Russian aggression.