Yeah, thanks for the boilerplate. Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide? Western Europe and the United States is not under any outside threat, let alone one that these countries could meaningfully assist with. This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on. When they're strong enough to contest it, you're going to be over there fighting for Ukranian soil, and if you care that much, you should just volunteer and leave the rest of us out of it.
We literally still have Russian nuclear weapons pointed at us. That seems like a serious threat.
Containment as a policy worked well enough during the Cold War as the least bad alternative. There's no reason to stop it and allow Russia to reconquer Eastern Europe, which they absolutely would do absent a strong containment policy. The historical record shows that isolationism and appeasement never works in the long run.
The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant. They're just asking for weapons, logistics, and intelligence. The more Russian soldiers that they can kill, the less threat that Russia will pose in other areas. It's sad the situation has come to this point and I take no delight in those deaths but there is no realistic alternative.
How the heck is putting Ukraine or Georgia in NATO going to protect us from Russia's nucleus weapons?? If anything it will make the threat more immediate.
> The Ukrainians are still willing to fight for their own soil so your point is illogical and irrelevant.
This thread is about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means we would be obligated to fight on the ground to defend those countries. I don't know what you're arguing against, but it seems you didn't read the thread.
> This thread is about bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which means we would be obligated to fight on the ground to defend those countries
Strictly speaking, it obligates the US (like any other NATO member), in the event of an attack on any other member, to “individually and in concert with the other [NATO members], such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
It’s quite plausible the US could do that without deciding to “fight on the ground”.
I read it, but you apparently don't understand what's actually happening. While NATO had some preliminary discussions with Ukraine they are not actively moving through the accession process. Every major NATO leader has been clear that the territorial dispute with Russia will have to be settled one way or another before Ukraine can officially join. So, you're being ignorant or disingenuous by bringing up an obligation to fight in the ground in Ukraine.
As for Georgia, they are a sovereign state and can make their own decisions. If they want to join and meet the criteria then let them join. How is Georgia any different from Finland in that regard?
A policy of aggressive containment keeps us safer by wasting Russian resources. When we surround them with hostile powers they have to spend more on defending their homeland and have less for building nuclear weapons or launching invasions. Keep them poor.
And anyway you haven't even proposed a viable alternative. There's no point in negotiating with Putin: he doesn't negotiate in good faith. Even if we gave him huge concessions now he would just come back and demand more in a few years. Nor are we in a position to be able to offer the type of concessions that Russia seems to want. Ukrainian territory and Georgian sovereign freedom of action aren't ours to give away. The citizens of those countries will have to decide for themselves.
> How is Georgia any different from Finland in that regard?
Basically there's isn't a difference, Finland shouldn't be in NATO either. Americans have no business defending Finland of all places. Georgia is even less of a concern, it might as well be on the moon for all the national interest we have in Georgia.
> When we surround them with hostile powers they have to spend more on defending their homeland and have less for building nuclear weapons or launching invasions.
Right, the cornered dog theory. Maybe he'll bark himself to sleep before he bites you.
> And anyway you haven't even proposed a viable alternative.
The alternative is that countries negotiate with regional powers and try to maintain friendly relations. The US is not world policeman and we can't afford to play one on TV, because it invites situations like the Ukrainian one.
> Americans have no business defending Finland of all places.
A very shortsighted view. Norway, Sweden and Finland are currently setting up a joint air force command so that in case of war, they could deliver a fatal blow to the Russian Northern Fleet at Murmansk. The Northern Fleet operates in the Atlantic and is the largest threat to shipping between North America and Europe. They represent the U-boats of the 21st century. Americans get incredible value from closer cooperation with Finland and Sweden.
> The alternative is that countries negotiate with regional powers and try to maintain friendly relations.
And what if it doesn't work out and instead a fascist regime first rolls over the entire Europe again and then starts to threaten rest of the world?
You are not proposing anything new.[1] This line of thought had wide support between the two world wars. The current system of international organizations and alliances is a "lesson learned" from that period.
> Exactly what mutual defense of the United States or Western Europe is Ukraine or Georgia going to provide?
(1) Other NATO members aren't only in Western Europe. Ukraine borders several NATO members and its Black Sea location positions it to provide support to even more. And it pretty clearly has a lot to offer its neighbors when it comes to mutual defense.
(2) NATO's single deployment under the mutual defense provision (Article 5) included Georgian and Ukrainian troops, even though they were only non-member partners at the time, and Ukraine has greatly increased its capacity in the intervening period, due to grim necessity imposed by Russia.
> This is nothing more than "containment" policy, an attempt to restrict another power's freedom of action, which only works as long as they're weak enough to be imposed on.
Containment worked with the Soviet Union — it can work again with Putin's Russia.
It can work, or it might not, in which case you or your children will be dying for some town in Eastern Ukraine you've never heard of and you can't pronounce.
Yeah, and the one lesson we should certainly take from the past is that taking a pass on containment to appease powerful, aggressive states never leads to those doing so (including, but limited to, Americans) paying a very high, avoidable price in blood and treasure overseas as a consequence when not trying to contain aggression surprisingly does not contain the aggression.
I can see this conversation is leading to Hitler. But sometimes containment leads to a stupid quagmire which you should never have been in in the first place, like Vietnam, and security guarantees to backwards unstable countries leads to larger, more all consuming wars like WW1. Ukraine and Georgia are Russia's back yard, we have no business there.
Well then if it might not work, I suppose we should just let Tsar Vladimir — abetted by his kleptocratic henchmen and his millions of state-media-deluded followers — do whatever TF seems good to His Imperial Majesty. Because heaven forbid we should take any risks to try to preserve a rules-based world order.
