Political impacts of Ukraine war

[Brad Sallows]

I didn’t say that they didn’t, I merely asked the question if they have done anything similar as to honouring the requirement to go to war as a result of a treaty.
NATO answered the call that the US put out back in September of 2001.
You seem pretty touchy about this, why care so much about this?

Because there's so much speculative bullshit here about the fate of Ukraine that all seems to hinge on various flavours of "duty" of the US to step up, and so much speculative whinging about whether Trump will honour a NATO article 5 call after the US did one. There's so often the implication the US "owes" one now, instead of entertaining the reverse perspective: after 9/11 the US was "owed one" by Europe after all the US paid to keep forces in Europe to deter (successfully) Soviet aggression, and the balance is even. Not that either view really makes any sense.

Ukraine isn't a NATO member. Past security guarantees weren't honoured. Two Democratic administrations failed to step up at two points in time Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and too often the discussion is redirected into how Trump's administration is the one that has fallen down on the job. Obama openly cooperated with Putin ("more flexibility after re-election") but Trump is always the bad guy who wants to get along with Putin. Biden put the screws to Ukraine when he was VP and didn't do much for Ukraine as president, but again Trump is the bad guy.

Europe is big enough to face down Russia. EU supporters keep making noises about how the EU is more responsible for peace in Europe than NATO. Let them form a coalition of the willing outside NATO (it can include NATO members, but not with any expectation of calling on NATO if they get into a furball with Russia that they can't handle because they're unwilling to dip deep enough into their available resources or can't resist skiving off from carrying weight commensurate with stature in such an alliance).

I'd rather treat them (security guarantees) like shit and dismiss everyone proposing them right now as people offering nothing than be in the "told you so" position after the cowards do the inevitable. If Ukraine assumes security guarantees will not be honoured, it will be more likely to tangibly create its own security and, to the extent negotiations are some kind of trade, not trade something (whatever is in the eventual agreement) for nothing (security guarantees).

 

[Eaglelord17]

Depends who’s doing the guaranteeing.
The Brits did well in Aug 1914 and September 1939. Has the US ever done anything similar?

Britain also had strategic reasons to join in said conflicts.

Britain, the US, and Russia guaranteed Ukraine in exchange for them getting rid of nukes.

I don’t see Britain or the US honouring said agreement.

Any agreement provided likely isn’t going to be worth the paper it is on. I predict any treaty at the moment shall only last as long as it takes for one side to rearm sufficiently to continue on fighting.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Because there's so much speculative bullshit here about the fate of Ukraine that all seems to hinge on various flavours of "duty" of the US to step up, and so much speculative whinging about whether Trump will honour a NATO article 5 call after the US did one. There's so often the implication the US "owes" one now, instead of entertaining the reverse perspective: after 9/11 the US was "owed one" by Europe after all the US paid to keep forces in Europe to deter (successfully) Soviet aggression, and the balance is even. Not that either view really makes any sense.

Ukraine isn't a NATO member. Past security guarantees weren't honoured. Two Democratic administrations failed to step up at two points in time Ukraine was invaded by Russia, and too often the discussion is redirected into how Trump's administration is the one that has fallen down on the job. Obama openly cooperated with Putin ("more flexibility after re-election") but Trump is always the bad guy who wants to get along with Putin. Biden put the screws to Ukraine when he was VP and didn't do much for Ukraine as president, but again Trump is the bad guy.

Europe is big enough to face down Russia. EU supporters keep making noises about how the EU is more responsible for peace in Europe than NATO. Let them form a coalition of the willing outside NATO (it can include NATO members, but not with any expectation of calling on NATO if they get into a furball with Russia that they can't handle because they're unwilling to dip deep enough into their available resources or can't resist skiving off from carrying weight commensurate with stature in such an alliance).

I'd rather treat them (security guarantees) like shit and dismiss everyone proposing them right now as people offering nothing than be in the "told you so" position after the cowards do the inevitable. If Ukraine assumes security guarantees will not be honoured, it will be more likely to tangibly create its own security and, to the extent negotiations are some kind of trade, not trade something (whatever is in the eventual agreement) for nothing (security guarantees).

So I’m guessing that historically the US has never had to honour a previously made treaty and go to war in aid of an Ally.

I’ve not mentioned Ukraine or anything related to Ukraine. I’ve only asked my above question.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So I’m guessing that historically the US has never had to honour a previously made treaty and go to war in aid of an Ally.

I’ve not mentioned Ukraine or anything related to Ukraine. I’ve only asked my above question.

Sure. What's the point of the question? Does a "yes" or "no" mean anything other than being a short word? Is the question meant to provoke some kind of debate or thought?

It could just mean that no-one has ever been willing to go to war with a US ally and thus risk going to war against the US, and therefore that the US routinely fulfills its obligations at a cost much less than actually going to war. We can only wonder how many wars the US has prevented simply by being an ally.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’ve not mentioned Ukraine or anything related to Ukraine. I’ve only asked my above question.

Sure. Title of thread: "Political impacts of Ukraine war". Hardly unreasonable to drag Ukraine into it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So I’m guessing that historically the US has never had to honour a previously made treaty and go to war in aid of an Ally.

I’ve not mentioned Ukraine or anything related to Ukraine. I’ve only asked my above question.

Stupid actions by Germany and some underhanded skullduggery by the UK brought the US into WWI just in time to spill some blood and get some medals. The US had to be dragged unwillingly into WWII, there were a lot of Americans who were willing to fight and POTUS that clearly sided with the Allies. However there was also a sizable contingent that was openly sympathetic to the Nazi's, couple with a large chunk of the population saying with some justification: "Not our problem, just another stupid European war"

 

[daftandbarmy]

Stupid actions by Germany and some underhanded skullduggery by the UK brought the US into WWI just in time to spill some blood and get some medals. The US had to be dragged unwillingly into WWII, there were a lot of Americans who were willing to fight and POTUS that clearly sided with the Allies. However there was also a sizable contingent that was openly sympathetic to the Nazi's, couple with a large chunk of the population saying with some justification: "Not our problem, just another stupid European war"

The USA is the world's largest teenager that still doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up

Why the U.S. Has Spent 200 Years Flip-Flopping Between Isolationism and Engagement​

What does the United States want to be to the world?

We tend to talk of nations as though they are individuals with defined characteristics and views on the world. It is a convenient shorthand. Nations, of course, comprise many different groups with different ideas that evolve and change over time. From the moment of its creation out of the 13 colonies, the United States has swung between wanting to keep the rest of the world at bay and itching to set it straight, between economic self-sufficiency and engagement in trade and investment, or between welcoming the world’s immigrants—those huddled masses referenced on the Statue of Liberty’s inscription—and keeping them and their dangerous foreign ways out.

Why the U.S. Has Spent 200 Years Flip-Flopping Between Isolationism and Engagement | HISTORY

What does the United States want to be to the world?

www.history.com