Imagine, if you will, this neighborhood scenario:
A good friend of the neighborhood, but not a member of the neighborhood “Club” begins being pulverized by a thug from the adjacent neighborhood.
The neighborhood, in forming their “Club”, agreed that they would defend from outside bullies ONLY those who are in the club. Since the “good friend” is not in the “club” the neighborhood merely stands by, watching, as they exchange predictions of how badly the thug will pulverize their “friend.”
Does it seem clear to you that, in spite of the fact that the good friend of the neighborhood is not in their “Club”, that the neighborhood has a moral obligation to defend their friend?
Is the neighborhood using the lack of club membership as an excuse to avoid confrontation with the bully?
If the neighborhood has that much fear of the bully, it makes you wonder if they would act even if a member of their own club was being pulverized.
This is the situation with NATO, the US, Ukraine, and Russia.
I have to ask: Is NATO using Ukraine’s lack of membership in their “Club” as an excuse to deny their moral imperative to help a “friend” who is being pulverized?
If there was no NATO, would they feel more compelled to help their friend?
If NATO denies the clear [to me] moral imperative to help their “friend” because he is not a member, you have to be concerned about their resolve to help each other if one of their own was being pulverized. This is especially true if their reason for not defending Ukraine is because of their fear of the bully – which is undeniably the case here.
If they are willing to sacrifice their non-member friend because of their fear of the bully, there is a good chance they would not defend one another due to the same fear.
Or is NATO a mere “protection racket”, the likes of an urban mafia that only protects the merchants that paid their protection money?
Here is the kicker to me:
The United States spent untold billions of dollars and untold thousands of lives over a 20-year period in Afghanistan training, defending, funding, equipping and fighting for a nation who’s people had a radically different culture, that didn’t really want us there, that disdained the values of the West, and which had no motivation to defend themselves, just going half-heartedly through deceptive motions, and whose leaders fled their nation days before its rapid fall.
Then we have Ukraine: A friend, having as many shared values as any ally we have, an enemy of our enemy, having an uncanny will to fight to defend their freedoms and begging for our help while being pummeled by the overpowering bully next door.
And what does NATO do? Nothing.
What does the United States of freakin’ freedom loving ‘merica do? Not much.
Ukraine isn’t part of the “Club.”
The perfect excuse to pretend the “moral imperative” doesn’t exit.
The history books won’t treat these actions kindly – if freedom loving countries are even around to write them.
6 comments:
What is it that you think America should do? I agree with most of your premise but am not sure that Ukraine is worth the battle that may ensue. There may be much greater loss and what would be accomplished? Is Ukraine straight up or is it significantly corrupt within its leadership? Maybe the USA needs a puppet government there also? I do think we need to look at strategic significance. America is weak and fickle. Can we accomplish anything at this point without rebuilding the 'American Brand' to what it once was? This is a sad situation, from whatever direction you look at it.
This is not constructive, but simply remorseful: Many Americans--and perhaps Europeans--will rue the day Trump was forced out of office. I truly believe this terrible event would not have occurred had his leadership guided world actions.
Dear John:
What do I think America should do?
A hell of a lot more than it's doing, for starters.
There is what we SHOULD HAVE DONE and WHAT WE SHOULD STILL DO.
What America SHOULD have done is this:
Weeks ago while the US was accurately predicting the bully's invasion, the US should have begun sanctions to demonstrate our resolve early on. The sanctions imposed as of today should have been imposed weeks ago as the buildup was occurring. We stood by as a useless, impotent commentator and predictor of upcoming atrocities. Weeks ago we should have pre-positioned defensive AND offensive weapons in NATO countries for quick reaction deliveries to Ukraine. We were caught flat-footed in that regard. It has been an ultra-slow motion response that led to the current disaster.
What America should STILL do is this:
Open up our oil and gas pipelines. Frack and drill, baby, frack and drill. Sell oil to Europe at a discount.
Stop importing Russian oil. Ask all allies to do the same. Our purchase of Russian oil is funding the invasion.
Cut off ALL means of Russian finance. All of it. No pussy footing in fear that we might offend someone.
Send many more thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment to the Baltic states and Poland to assure the fear of whatever higher power they believe in permeates the Russian government.
Send a couple amphibious divisions to the west coast of Alaska to make them wonder.
Create a broad array of meaningful, significant negotiation tools. Use your imagination.
As it stands, the bully is intimidating the West into total inaction. We may as well hand over the farm and kiss our sorry asses buh bye.
Several nations, including the US, are still equivocating on their cutting off dealings with Russia. We and Germany are still funding Russia by buying their oil and gas. That should be considered a criminal activity. But who really gives a ----, right?
My doctrine the "peace of non-proximity" weighs in here that states no country can conquer any other country that is "not" proximate to it and therefore cannot be absorbed. The UK proved this with the US. And believe me, Gen Lafayette was thinking of The UK and not the US.
Dear Spencer:
Helping a friend does not automatically imply that we send US military personnel to the other side of the world.
There are a thousand ways the US can help an ally nation in need who is not "proximate" to the US.
Unfortunately, our alleged President dallied in what he could have done, and dallies still today.
As I recall, and as you should, too, neither Britain, nor France(Normandy) nor Japan nor Germany were "proximate" to the United States. And as we both recalled, we aided our allies and "conquered" our enemies. It is foolish not to help an ally, proximate or not, with the help of proximate allies, when he is being unmercifully pummeled.
Post a Comment