This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

[Aardvark86]

I've been reading two rationales for why the United States shouldn't act. One is that the Russians have nukes and we don't want to risk a nuclear exchange that would end humanity. The other is that Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so we have no obligation to help them. If you think that the threat of nuclear war is too high for us to act in Ukraine, then why would Russia invading Poland or one of the Baltic states compel us to act? Just because we signed a treaty, we're willing to risk the nuclear scenario? If the nuclear card is the end-all, be-all of foreign policy, then agreements like NATO really mean nothing, and we can't live in a world like that. That means the nuclear threat is a red herring in determining our course of action. What's left is to decide to do the morally right thing, even in the absence of treaty obligations, and act to the best of our ability to protect the lives and rights of the Ukrainian people.

As described, I think those rationales have a little strawman quality to them.
1. Re: nuclear, yes, that's the elephant in the room, but it's really a baby elephant, and it feeds into the strategy of not escalating things. In other words, it's not just about minimizing nuclear escalation risk, short of Putin "literally" being a madman, which serious people don't give too much credence to. It's about preserving room for de-escalation, i.e., the exit strategy, graceful or otherwise. While it may well be that as a practical matter a "truly neutral" ukraine is no longer realistic going forward, a "less armed" Ukraine (eg, with a third party security guarantor) might still be a viable pathway out.
2. I don't think we're not helping UKR more simply because we're not obligated to. Mainly because, we are, in fact, helping them, a lot. Rather the lack of an obligation (and maintaining that distinction) reinforces the nonescalation/minimize escalation/no threat to russia message that has been at the heart of our approach. Tactics should always yield to strategy.

 

[torbee]

Then call it that, as I suggested.

No offense, but anyone with even a good high school education knows what Liberal Democracy is in geopolitical terms.

Freaking Davenport schools man!

 

[Jim Grizzly]

The "liberal world order"? How bout "democracies have beat tyranny"? Or "the western way beats the eastern rulers". I get a kick out of "liberals" randomly claiming victory. I want Ukraine to win, I want every democracy to reevaluate what it wants in a leader after watching zalensky, I want Nato to start pulling its weight and not relying on us to always be the peace keeper. Pointing at a non existent scoreboard while a war is actively happening and trying to claim victory is the biggest tell foe that person has never actually won shit imaginable.


Shits weak.

Classical liberals. AKA western democracy.

 

[anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r]

Care to point out anyone on this board that doesn’t think NATO will fight for a NATO member, besides you?

I 100% believe there would be a non insignificant contingent in this country and this board that would be saying that it’s not worth risking WWIII and MAD over places like Poland, or the baltics. After all it’s a long ways from US soil….

 

[mustang_hawk]

Probably Pepsi but it looks like another Russian general caught the dead.

Ukraine claims Russian general has been killed in Kharkiv | CNN

The Ukrainian defense ministry has claimed that a Russian general was killed in battle near Ukraine's second-largest city, Kharkiv.

www.cnn.com

Care to point out anyone on this board that doesn’t think NATO will fight for a NATO member, besides you?

If trump is elected again in 24, NATO may have to fight for another member without the US. I don’t believe for a minute that he would have stood with our allies had Russia done the same thing to Poland or the Baltic countries that they are now doing in Ukraine.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

No offense, but anyone with even a good high school education knows what Liberal Democracy is in geopolitical terms.

Freaking Davenport schools man!

Did they call it that?

 

[anon_b29nm7v7dwp6r]

I've been reading two rationales for why the United States shouldn't act. One is that the Russians have nukes and we don't want to risk a nuclear exchange that would end humanity. The other is that Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so we have no obligation to help them. If you think that the threat of nuclear war is too high for us to act in Ukraine, then why would Russia invading Poland or one of the Baltic states compel us to act? Just because we signed a treaty, we're willing to risk the nuclear scenario? If the nuclear card is the end-all, be-all of foreign policy, then agreements like NATO really mean nothing, and we can't live in a world like that. That means the nuclear threat is a red herring in determining our course of action. What's left is to decide to do the morally right thing, even in the absence of treaty obligations, and act to the best of our ability to protect the lives and rights of the Ukrainian people.

This is exactly right. If the threat of nuclear war is the main reason for the west not to act here . Then following that logic, no we shouldn’t defend anywhere besides our own borders….

 

[torbee]

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Settle down there Fonzie, the author is referring to the world's "Liberal democracies" -- that is Liberal with a capital L which is not the same as lowercase liberal which you and your conservative buddies were successful in demonizing for many people.

Liberal democracy, also referred to as Western democracy, is the combination of a liberal political ideology that operates under an indirect democratic form of government. It is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States)[1] or uncodified (such as in the United Kingdom), to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of expansion in the second half of the 20th century, liberal democracy became a prevalent political system in the world

This is the only reference to democracy in your piece.


"Democracies need stability."

 

[torbee]

Did they call it that?

Did who call what, what?

Scholars, political scientists, authors, journalists, historians and others have used "Liberal" and "Western" democracy pretty much interchangeably for generations. It is something most people who discuss/debate geopolitical issues and history are foundationally aware of.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Did who call what, what?

Scholars, political scientists, authors, journalists, historians and others have used "Liberal" and "Western" democracy pretty much interchangeably for generations. It is something most people who discuss/debate geopolitical issues and history are foundationally aware of.

But your author did not. What they did say was "liberal world order".

 

[Jim Grizzly]

Did they call it that?

Did you know to begin with?

Crack a book there, Kissinger.

 

[ConvenientParking]

Did they call it that?

I don't specifically remember learning definitions in school, I just remember when it was fashionable to wear teabag hats and call yourself a classical liberal who wanted to return to small government.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Did you know to begin with?

Crack a book there, Kissinger.

The words they used were "liberal world order your stretching to make it work.


Dumb.

 

[torbee]

But your author did not. What they did say was "liberal world order".

It's ok to admit you were ignorant of the meaning of that in the context in which it is presented. This is not an "argument" you can win, because there is literally no argument.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

I don't specifically remember learning definitions in school, I just remember when it was fashionable to wear teabag hats and call yourself a classical liberal who wanted to return to small government.

Dude likes to see homos naked.... not really sure how thar impacts me but, cool man.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

It's ok to admit you were ignorant of the meaning of that in the context in which it is presented. This is not an "argument" you can win, because there is literally no argument.

"Liberal world order" isn't ****ing close to what your trying to say years of background supports. It's ****ing dumb.

 

[torbee]

Liberal world order isn't ****ing close to what your trying to say years of background supports. It's ****ing dumb.

Ok pal. You are right. The author was clearly referring to American liberals in the piece. You got us! 😂

 

[torbee]

"Liberal world order" isn't ****ing close to what your trying to say years of background supports. It's ****ing dumb.

And when you have stopped, how do you like to put it, having your little pissypants party -- here is some assigned reading:

Liberal international order - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order on JSTOR

Daniel Deudney, G. John Ikenberry, The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order, Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 179-196

www.jstor.org

Princeton Site Builder

scholar.princeton.edu

 

[seminole97]

I 100% believe there would be a non insignificant contingent in this country and this board that would be saying that it’s not worth risking WWIII and MAD over places like Poland, or the baltics. After all it’s a long ways from US soil….

Can you name any names?
Or is this like McCarthy’s list?

 

[mnole03]

A German says good morning.

 

[mnole03]

View embedded media

Putin said no targeting civilians. We’re looking into how this was misinterpreted.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

It's ok to admit you were ignorant of the meaning of that in the context in which it is presented. This is not an "argument" you can win, because there is literally no argument.

The word democracy is used one time in that entire article. Dumb.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

And when you have stopped, how do you like to put it, having your little pissypants party -- here is some assigned reading:

Liberal international order - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order on JSTOR

Daniel Deudney, G. John Ikenberry, The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order, Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 179-196

www.jstor.org

Princeton Site Builder

scholar.princeton.edu

Let me go change the Wikipedia page tonsay whatever the **** I want.


Dumb.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Ok pal. You are right. The author was clearly referring to American liberals in the piece. You got us! 😂

Derp... dank God Trump wasn't in office... derp..... cuz every other world leader has not responded roughly the same way.... derp.




Dumb.

 

[torbee]

The word democracy is used one time in that entire article. Dumb.

It is OK to not always know things. It's OK to admit you were confused.

 

[mnole03]

Russians tried to break through the 24th OMBR lines. They failed. This guy destroyed two tanks and a BMD.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

It is OK to not always know things. It's OK to admit you were confused.

Covid Bro, 6 feet and shit.



Dumb piece was dumb.

 

[torbee]

Dumb piece was dumb.

You do realize it echoed many of the talking points you've been making in this thread for days, right? Are you calling yourself dumb now?

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

You do realize it echoed many of the talking points you've been making in this thread for days, right? Are you calling yourself dumb now?

I'm dumb as shit bro.... duh...




I understand it had valid talking points. I understand the message of democracy has prevailed and putin is never going to actually win win. I agree with all of that. The back patting is premature and I find it funny.

 

[Tenacious E]

If trump is elected again in 24, NATO may have to fight for another member without the US. I don’t believe for a minute that he would have stood with our allies had Russia done the same thing to Poland or the Baltic countries that they are now doing in Ukraine.

I gave you a like but I have no idea why you quoted me.

 

[Jim Grizzly]

The words they used were "liberal world order your stretching to make it work.


Dumb.

Most intelligent adults can understand context when they understand definitions. I'm glad we were able to make the world a little less dumb ITT.

 

[h-hawk]

View embedded media

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Most intelligent adults can understand context when they understand definitions. I'm glad we were able to make the world a little less dumb ITT.

"Inject bleach".



Dumb article was dumb.

 

[peacehawk]

So if Putin and his gang start the mass murder (let’s say 100k) of Ukrainian citizens, including women and children, would this be enough to declare war? It would be for me. Such sad times.

 

[jamesvanderwulf]

 

[h-hawk]

Patriot missiles to Poland-why not send them to Ukraine with "instructors". That is where they are needed.

 

[Bonerfarts]

I think this is the right move.

 

[tumorboy]

And when you have stopped, how do you like to put it, having your little pissypants party -- here is some assigned reading:

Liberal international order - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order on JSTOR

Daniel Deudney, G. John Ikenberry, The Nature and Sources of Liberal International Order, Review of International Studies, Vol. 25, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 179-196

www.jstor.org

Princeton Site Builder

scholar.princeton.edu

Wasting your time when Whiskey gets his fussy britches on. He's gonna whine.

 

[Jim Grizzly]

"Inject bleach".



Dumb article was dumb.

It has to be the article....Certainly not the blowhard who can't admit he reacted in ignorance....much like the 35% of Americans you vote with.

Back to Ukraine.