North Korea: Do we or don't we (invade)?

Most of the countries bordering Russia were formerly part of the USSR. The populations within these countries are not homogenous. When the Soviet Union broke apart, millions of Russians instantly became citizens of a foreign country. Naturally, schisms occurred between the native population and the Russian population. This happened in Georgia, in Ukraine, and it's happening in the Baltic countries even now. Half the population in Maldova, a recent addition to NATO, are against joining and pissed that a vote wasn't allowed.

Going back to Georgia, similar to Crimea, Russian Peacekeepers were in place to protect the citizens from the Georgia dictator. And yes, they were there as peacekeepers. Georgia then launched an attack and Putin shocked them and America by standing up to the aggression. The Western press then turned the facts 180 degrees around and created a false narrative just as with Crimea and just as with the 2016 US election. Americans then choose to believe what is easiest to digest.

 

I'm glad you mentioned Iran. Here's a homework assignment for you. Find out what country was responsible for orchestrating a coup against a democratically elected President, and then installed a brutal puppet dictator. When you learn the answer, get back to me. Man. LOL

 

Back to North Korea. The typical American looks at Kim as a wacko nutcase who wants nuclear toys to use as leverage in order to blackmail America into making concessions, be they economic or military. And that perspective probably has a lot of truth. But let's look back to the Korean War and relate that to the North Korean psychology and see if we are missing something.

In the Korean War, it is estimated that 20% of the North Korean population died. That's right, 20% died. The US dropped more bombs on North Korea than were dropped during World War II. If you know anything about World War II you know we bombed the hell out of Japan, not even counting the two atom bombs. If 20% of our country died due to war (combination of bombs, bullets, starvation, and disease) the numbers would be around 60 million. Napalm was used over North Korea. Nearly every structure in the country was flattened. It's said some missions came back without dropping any ordinates because no more targets could be found. Dams and bridges were destroyed. The only reason North Korea wasn't defeated was the near infinite amount of Chinese soldiers made it impossible to occupy North Korea despite air supremacy.

So what lessons must the North Koreans have learned? I would think the first priority to ensure such massive losses never occur again would be to attain at least equal firepower or a strong enough deterrent that no one would ever think of attacking them. That has to be, if not the primary goal, certainly a key strategy of the North Korean state. After Iraq and Libya gave up their stockpiles of lethal weapons in the case of Iraq and the nuclear program in the case of Libya, the US wiped them out. Syria gave up its chemical weapons and the US is still attempting to grab real estate and redistribute it. Why would North Korea wish to suffer a second holocaust sixty years after the first one? If they can become a nuclear State, their soereignty and safety is more secure.

 

Mexico is within their right to take back the Western United States and Texas to "protect" homogenous populations, apparently. We should all stand by and let it happen. Of course, in the USSR case, Mother Russia moved native Russions into these satellite countries by the 10's of thousands in the 60's and 70's as a way to control them by having Russian's in leadership positions. Per this logic, Russia now has a duty to protect these minority populations and has rights to the land which they settled on. It's quite a convenient bit of logic rather than simply telling these people "if you want support...return to Russia."

 

Suppose the state of Texas voted in a governer and then a contingent of racist white supremists staged a violent coup and appointed David Duke governer. Following this the State proposes the speaking of Spanish to be illegal. Suddenly the Rio Grand valley begins protests, occupying government buildings, and demanding secession. And suppose this happened in the 1880s when the valley was only a few decades removed from being a part of Mexico. Are you getting the picture now? Not so clear cut is it?

 

They learned that fearless leader started driving at the age of 3, is a skilled composer and musician, and raced the chief executive of a foreign yacht company and overcame great odds to clinch the race at just 9 years old... they only learn whatever fearless leader tells them.

 

Uh...Crimea became part of Ukraine 60 years ago. A few decades removed? Putin took Crimea for one reason, Sevastopol naval base. Nothing more, nothing less. Protecting indigenous and previously relocated Russians was secondary.

 

I think you understand the analogy. When Kruschev designated Crimea as part of Ukraine, it was largely symbolic. Everything was governed under the USSR. The people living in Crimea were Russians, they were free to travel as they pleased, spoke Russian, and considered themselves Russian. The significant change happened when the USSR dissolved over night less than 30 years ago. You can pretend otherwise, but I know you know better.

 

Up to the Red River? Interesting concept. How would that impact the Big 12? Is that what Darrel Royal was? An American sent to stabilize that region?

 

Same type of rhetoric used to annex Austria and the Sudetenland in the 1930s.

 

Well, Crimea voted overwhelmingly to exit Ukraine and the whole thing was accomplished without taking a human life.

Contrast that with what appears to be the next step in Syria. After ISIS is defeated, the US is planning on maintaining a permanent presence within Syria. What legal basis do we have to do this? None. You people who go on and on about Russia violating sovereignty are delusional. At least Russia has demographic and historic interests in Ukraine. What demographic or historic interests do the US have in Syria? Answer: The quest for global hegemony.

 

Not quite as delusional as conspiracy theory junkies who constantly bash their own country for assumed military actions of the future.

Never mind it hasn't occurred nor has said strategy been communicated by active leaders in our gov and military. It's guaranteed cuz the internet told us so.

How dare the US point fingers at Russia. The speculative future occupation of Syria is total hypocrisy.

It's almost as bad as the 100,000+ troop surge into Syria a few months back. Oh wait, never mind, that one went bust after countless claims by the conspiracy cult.

You know I'm so disgusted with our gov for their planned occupation of Canada in 2057...ugggg damn American imperialists.

 

It's no longer a conspiracy theory when it comes true.
https://popularresistance.org/us-expands-military-footprint-in-syria-to-eight-base/
http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/28853d27-7d6e-4192-9c3c-ed9498806ec4

Brad, you are such a rah-rah for the home team you can't evaluate anything without strong bias. The meeting between Trump and Putin appears to have opened the door for constructive cooperation. But we'll see if any positive steps get undermined by the neocon factions which Trump hasn't been able to control thus far.

 

Crimeans are Russians. Crimea should never have been part of the Ukraine in the first place.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

The west already fought the Crimean War in the 1850s. It was stupid and pointless. Now people are trying to fight the same stupid war again. Crimea is not the Sudetenland and Putin is not Hitler.

 

I yield to Henry Kissinger:

Henry Kissinger: To settle the Ukraine crisis, start at the end

By Henry A. Kissinger
March 5, 2014

Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977.

Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins.

Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.

Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia’s borders again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States.

The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia’s means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia.

The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine’s relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities.

The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 60 percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 300th-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system.

Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanukovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction.

Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.

Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers.

Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.

 

Putin is not Hitler. He does not have a book discussing his plans for global domination and the destruction of undesirables. He is not Lenin or Stalin. He is not leading a third of the world with one economic system in a death struggle against another third of the world with a different economic system.

Putin is the result of Clinton moving NATO east and Clinton bombing Belgrade. Russians fear invasions and want buffer zones around their country (we are not too dissimilar as we were ready to go to war when the russians made an ally of Cuba and started putting missiles there).

Want to get rid of Putin? Stop the expansion of NATO and do not add the Ukraine to NATO or the EU. We do not need the Ukraine anyway. There will be no reason for the Russia people to support Putin if we stop expanding eastward and stay out of the balkans. Right now, Russia is an enemy of our own making. We move NATO eastward and get involved in the Balkans, then we justify it by Russia's angry response after the fact. Let Russia manage their sphere of influence and work with them on Islamic terror. Due to the atom bomb, they will not attack any current NATO countries anyway. There is no need to back them in a corner.

We are currently doing what George Washington warned against. We are involved in stupid internal European disputes and are trying to be involved in another stupid Crimean War. It was stupid in the 1850s, but at least we were not involved that time.

Also, Ukraine had an elected government and they were overthrown by a mob in an undemocratic coup. Supporting the illegitimate Ukrainian government in the west is not support for freedom or democracy. They are just a pawn in an internal european struggle between the EU and Russia. Screw petty European BS power plays. Russia and the EU can sort it out without the US or NATO. All we have to say is there will not be a war on NATO countries. Beyond that, the EU and Russia can do whatever they want. It would be preferable for both the EU and Russia to stop expanding, leave things alone and actually try to get along.

 

Anytime I read about the Ukraine, this scene enters my head.

 

Trump's been back less than 48 hours and his own UN ambassador (nutcase Haley), Lindsay Graham, and even Tillotson have pressured Trump to walk back from his post G-20 comments regarding the discussion with Putin. I expect Muellar's team of deep state and Democrat operatives will ramp up impeachment talk very soon.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40557477

^ The Ukraine wants to be in NATO. We do not need them.

 

I'm generally pro-NATO, but we shouldn't admit Ukraine. However, if they joined, it wouldn't justify a Russian invasion or annexation of Ukraine or any part of it. That's ultimately the prerogative of Ukraine and the current NATO countries.

 

We felt justified when we prepared for an invasion of Cuba during the missile crisis. After we bombed Belgrade, we now have a massive military base in Kosovo for some reason. I hate to say I can see the Russian point of view, but if the shoe was on the other foot, we would react similarly. The Ukraine, Georgia and Syria have all been defensive actions defending Russian interests in their sphere of influence. If Putin does something offensively, I would be more inclined to side with those screaming "the Russians are coming." So far, all I have seen are defensive actions of a country with crumbling power and influence trying to maintain its buffers and few remaining interests in the middle east.

^ This analysis is Russia specific. North Korea, on the other hand, is an aggressor that is run by a crazt person that needs to be reined in.

 

Man, you and Musburger need to get together and go bowling. First, there's no equivalence. NATO in 2014 isn't remotely comparable to the Soviet Union in 1962. Ukraine joining NATO isn't anywhere near the threat of nuclear weapons and missiles in Cuba deployed by a country that vocally threatened to "bury" the western democracies. That was an imminent threat to murder large numbers of American civilians inside the United States. Nobody in Russia believes a NATO country is going to attack them. Second, preparing for an invasion isn't the same thing as actually invading.

However, like I said, just because Ukraine joining NATO wouldn't justify an invasion doesn't mean we should invite Ukraine into NATO. They wouldn't bring enough to the alliance to justify the shitstorm it would cause.

Well, NATO won a war in the area (which I opposed and still think was a bad idea). It shouldn't surprise you that they have a military base there. And I wouldn't call it "massive." It's geographically large (to accommodate a large number of helicopters and has a lot of support services because it's pretty remote), but it doesn't have a big troop presence. They have a few hundred on a rotational basis.

But we haven't. There are enemies of the United States in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. We're not invading anybody to stop them.

So who decides what's in their "sphere of influence," and what does that mean? Do those countries get a say in the issue? Set NATO aside since it's a military alliance. What if Ukraine wants to join the EU for economic reasons? I'm generally hostile to the EU, but that's because the EU sucks. It's not because Russia should have veto power over who joins and who doesn't.

They're going to be more than defensive when it comes to Syria. Once ISIS is destroyed, Putin is going to have Assad by the balls. That's going to be a net gain for them. They've already opened an air base, and they'll undoubtedly expand their naval base.

And by the way, I don't have a problem with Russia having a military presence in Syria. They acquired those bases fair and square (as we've acquired ours), and they're thoroughly invested in the Syrian conflict. As I've said earlier, I think we should be working with Russia to defeat ISIS and then negotiate a settlement of what's going to happen to the area after the war with both countries having joint responsibilities, as we did in Germany after WWII.

 

Actually, I have to disagree with his opinions on just about every other foreign policy issue. His stances tend to be anti-US. I do not think similar stances on Russia come from the same place. His stance comes from his perception of the US as some evil imperialist power.

My stance comes from reading George F. Kennan and Henry Kissinger about how the Ruskies think. Musberger thinks the US has a nefarious plan. I agree with you Deez that we do not. The expansion of NATO and the EU is seen as "natural progress" to the west. However, that is just not how Russians see it and I think we are severely misplaying our Russian foreign policy. Part of the problem is we are perceiving 21st century Russians as 20th century Soviets and Putin as Hitler. Russians were very pro West until we bombed Belgrade. I do not believe they ultimately want an empire or war anymore. Putin is a bad person and a gangster, but I think he is more concerned with personal wealth than world domination. He is doing what he was elected to do and "stand up to the west." Hypocritically supporting an undemocratic coup in the Ukraine puts us on the path of creating an aggressive Russia run by a despot that we fear. Our support for the overthrow of the Ukrainian government can only be perceived by Russia as the west valuing a pro EU, anti Russia Ukraine more than a democratic Ukraine.

This is where you are wrong. Russia has historically been invaded over and over (by more than just Napoleon or Hitler). The Russians do fear invasion and want a buffer zone around themselves.

Do you and I understand the west has no plans to invade Russia? Yes. Do the Russians understand that? No. They just see NATO moving east on them. This is why they elected Putin in the first place. He promised to stand up to the west.

The only way to "fix" Russia's psychological deficiencies is to give them breathing space and their much sought after buffer zones. See the Kissinger article. Hopefully over time, new generations will lose their "invasion phobia" as peace reigns.

The wants of the Ukraine do not trump the need to get Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal on board with the west. The goal should be to make Russia an ally and avoid a cold war situation from ever happening again. To do that, the expansion of NATO and the EU east needs to chill. There is no great need to expand east and we need to stop before we turn Russia into an aggressor rather than a friend. Yes, Russia's might makes ignoring the Ukraine's wants right, just the like the US's might makes a lot of things we do right.

I think we both agree we would like to see the US, Europe and Russia united against real threats such as radical islam or north korea and not busy creating threats against one another with typical European power plays/politics.

 

Good post. Whether the US is pursuing imperialist policy or not can be debated. Regardless of where one stands on that, I believe your take is correct with respect to mistakes in US policy toward Russia.

 

To clarify what I interpret as imperialist US policy, I'm specifically referring to what is generally termed "neocon." Neocon ideology is the belief that the United States is exceptional in the sense that the US must lead the world and may legitimately use force (military, financial, soft power) in order to achieve compliance. No nation can be allowed to attain the ability to challenge US leadership, and the US may act pre-emptivy to eliminate such threats. These threats could be military or economic. An example of the latter might be a nation moving to exit the US dollar system or dominating a region's natural resources.

I would ask the question what right does the US have to mandate how other countries conduct trade and what method of payment is used therein. Also, what "moral basis" exists for the US to decide how another nation chooses to allocate natural resources?

There is no "official" neocon US policy. My view is that elites and bureaucracies are implementing imperialist policy independent of public opinion and statute. The fact that the policy is not officially stated nor uniformly agreed to withi the government leads to massive corruption, lack of transparency, and dysfunction.

 

It so happens that their spheres of influence including putting troops in other nations against those nations' wills. "Don't worry, we're entering defensively". Right. (At least with the former 2. Syria is a bit different because it's a madhouse with multiple factions and outside intervention not even being consistent in who the hell they are actually supporting).

 

Like the Iraq War?

The north in the american civil war?

The annexation of the Philippines?

All US-American Indian wars?

Panama?

Grenada?

Our almost invasion of Cuba?

The US invasion of the Dominican Republic?

Most of our involvement in the Western Hemisphere?

I am perfectly fine with us doing these things. I just dont understand why we would hold Russia to a different standard... especially since we avert nuclear war and all.

 

If the US were actually Deezestan (the hypothetical nation in which I am benevolent dictator), NATO wouldn't have expanded as far east. I would have incorporated Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and Slovenia - the countries that border the Cold War NATO countries and Austria, with the exception of Greece and Turkey. I wouldn't have incorporated former Soviet republics or pushed the alliance as far into Southeastern Europe to try to surround the Black Sea. I would have treated the other countries like Sweden - favorably and cooperatively but without incorporation into the security guarantee.

However, the fact that NATO and these countries didn't do what I would have done doesn't justify aggressive action.

No, we don't. If we did, the military presence in Europe would be comparable to what it was during the Soviet era. It's about one-fifth the size. We're treating Putin with caution. There is a military buildup happening, but it's small. We're not going to Soviet-era levels. We're not going to half the Soviet-era levels. We might be going to one-fourth. That's not a "**** bricks and annex Crimea" level.

They were pro-West long after we bombed Belgrade (another action I wouldn't have done). They became anti-West because they got pumped with a lot of a lot of anti-Western propaganda in a state-controlled press driven by politics and because those who take issue with that narrative got suppressed or killed.

It's bigger than that. He got elected to rebuild the economy, get rid of the crooks and traitors, and restore national pride. Standing up to the West became part of that agenda. He isn't like Hitler, but in that sense he was elected on a similar platform.

Everybody was interfering in Ukraine. Nobody should have been.

Yes, I know Russia has been invaded from the West, but the countries that did that have been fundamentally transformed politically, socially, military, etc. The dynamics are radically different, and yes, Putin knows that. Germany isn't going to invade Russia again. Neither is France. Putin knows it and doesn't fear either one. Putin fears those countries like the US fears Indian tribes.

How's that working out? Ukraine isn't in the EU, and Russia already interferes there. I'm not pro-EU. You know that from Brexit discussions. However, the institution formerly known as the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community is first and foremost about economic integration, not security. In fact the security element of the EU exists to diminish the US role in Europe. Again, I don't like the EU, but if Ukraine joined the EU, it wouldn't be a security threat to Russia. And Putin knows this.

 

This comment is worth discussing I think.

The economic future of Russia is tied to the new "Silk Road" initiative also known as OBOR (One Belt and One Road) which proposes a land based trade economy connecting China, Russia, and as many Asian countries as possible such as India and Pakistan. OBOR envisions trade and finance outside of the US dollar system. Along the route are countries such as Afghanistan, Turkey, and various 'stan countries that contain valuable minerals and natural resources.

Opposing OBOR is the United States and the majority of Europe. As countries align with OBOR, the dollar weakens and the current financial system breaks down. US superpower status erodes as a result. Bringing states bordering Russian into NATO, sanctioning Russia's industry, and disrupting Arab nationalist states are designed to pressure Russia's economy. This is warfare by non-military means.

Russia does not fear the German, French, or Lithuanian militaries. But they fear the United States and what unstable leadership might be willing to do in a desperate attempt to hold on to the status quo by attacking Russia by any means available. And if the last resort of the neocons is to launch a first strike nuclear attack on Russia - even at the risk of the destruction of mankind - that's a concern. Surrounding Russia with anti-balistic missiles that can easily be re-purposed as offensive weapons would be the step making such a scenario appear plausible.