Should the US (and NATO) Arm Ukraine?

[Sebastian]

I was talking about our Pravda, meaning CNN, Fox, NBC, and the major newspapers. And I don't mean today's Pravda, I mean the original. I guess talking about Russia I should have chosen a different state propaganda agency to make my point to avoid confusion. Anyway, the U.S. propaganda arm is pounding the war drums.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/03/14/cnn-beating-drums-war-paul-craig-roberts/

Re: The Article.

So, Putin is the victim of this tragedy? Our propaganda made him invade and annex Crimea and invade Ukraine proper?

 

[Jordan]

I went back and read your posts a second time, and i dont think they are as clear as you hope..But they are decent analysis..

I dont have the bandwidth (or perhaps staff) to do the kind of posting Gour does, so I wont belabor it. But my point is that Ukraine is an entirely different dynamic than Afghanistan or Iraq, or syria for that matter. Its not a cultural mismatch, it is a straight land grab by a megalomaniac. Whether Putin is Stalin or Hitlerish, no diference. He is ruling Russia with propoganda and nationalism, and we all know where that leads. Apeasement and otherwise wringing hands, or negotiating with them when we know they will not abide by it, is not a path to success. We have real allies in the Baltics, and if we let them slip back into russian hegemony, we will have lost everything in terms of european stability that we gained with the fall of the berlin wall.

Yeah I definitely appreciate your realist take on the situation. One big problem with arming Ukraine is it is a de-facto war against Russia, which would literally destroy the UN. I also am concerned if defeating Russia in Ukraine would get rid of Putin, or even his popularity. Weapons, as a general rule, don't make conflict's end quicker.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

One last addition, saying there were elections is bullshit. Elections are a result of the institutions. The institutions built by the United States resulted in the exact results Washington wanted.

Saying that elections are the result of institutions, and therefore aren't elections, is simply silly. Every election everywhere occurs because of "Institutions." It would mean that no election has ever been held anywhere.

And it didn't give the U.S. the "exact result" we wanted. We wanted a result where the winner would be far more amenable to reconciliation between Sunnis and Shi'ites, and more accommodating to the Kurds. We didn't get it. Instead, we got more Shi'ite partisanship than we would have preferred.

Additionally, if elections are what defines democracy, and you believe the U.S. does seek democracy, than you need to explain Washington's unwillingness to work with Morsi in Egypt.

Since when does support for democracy as the best of all alternatives mean you have to agree with the views of anyone who is elected democratically? It is entirely possible that the elected government of another country may have interests that oppose ours.

As for the U.S. "seeking democracy", Democracy", standing alone, is not some universal moral good. 51 people on an island voting to eat the other 49 is "democracy". We seek democracy that includes respect for what we believe to be the basic rights of everyone. There is nothing inconsistent about opposing the results of a democratic election where that is not the result.

 

[Jordan]

Saying that elections are the result of institutions, and therefore aren't elections, is simply silly. Every election everywhere occurs because of "Institutions." It would mean that no election has ever been held anywhere.

I did not say that. Let me clarify. Iraq did have elections, but they were created to satisfy Washington and not other Iraqis.

And it didn't give the U.S. the "exact result" we wanted. We wanted a result where the winner would be far more amenable to reconciliation between Sunnis and Shi'ites, and more accommodating to the Kurds. We didn't get it. Instead, we got more Shi'ite partisanship than we would have preferred.

I'm sorry but I have not read one academic work, whether it be a neocon like Fouad Ajami or a leftist like Bassam Haddad and anyone in between, that claimed that is what the U.S. wanted. Maybe you providing a source here would be helpful? I'm not claiming I know everything about Iraq but I need evidence to address this claim.

Since when does support for democracy as the best of all alternatives mean you have to agree with the views of anyone who is elected democratically? It is entirely possible that the elected government of another country may have interests that oppose ours.

As for the U.S. "seeking democracy", Democracy", standing alone, is not some universal moral good. 51 people on an island voting to eat the other 49 is "democracy". We seek democracy that includes respect for what we believe to be the basic rights of everyone. There is nothing inconsistent about opposing the results of a democratic election where that is not the result.

I disagree but fine. What should the US support throughout the globe? I am confused about how you feel in regards to arming Ukraine? Why should we do this? Who should we support? If it is not for human rights, which is what Egypt was transforming into, what is it?

 

[Sebastian]

Oh, Russia!

"Copenhagen (AFP) - Russia's ambassador to Denmark said Saturday that the NATO country's navy could be targeted by nuclear missiles if it joins the Western alliance's anti-missile shield.

The threat made by Ambassador Mikhail Vanin in an opinion piece he wrote for the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten sparked an angry reaction and came amid an increasingly Cold War-style standoff between Moscow and the West."I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences of what happens if Denmark joins the US-led missile defence," Ambassador Mikhail Vanin wrote in the daily.

"If this happens Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles."

Russia has long opposed NATO's missile shield -- launched in 2010 and due to be fully operational by 2025 -- in which member countries contribute radar and weaponry to protect Europe against missile attacks. Denmark has pledged to supply one or more frigates equipped with advanced radar to track incoming missiles. The chairwoman of the Danish parliament's foreign affairs, Mette Gjerskov told AFP that the comments were "very threatening and not necessary" as the missile shield was simply an "intruder alarm" and no danger to Russia.

"This is a way of escalating the verbal tone between Russia and NATO," she said, adding that the comments were also aimed at Russian public opinion. "But it doesn't change the fact that we're not afraid."
Denmark's Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard said the remarks were "unacceptable rhetoric" and "completely out of proportion. "One should not threaten such serious things as the ambassador has done here," he told news agency Ritzau.
Tensions between Russia and the Nordic countries have risen in recent years with reports of increased Russian airforce incursions in the Baltic region. Holger K. Nielsen, defence spokesman for the Socialist People's Party, which is opposed to Denmark's involvement in the NATO shield, called the ambassador's comments "crazy".


"His opinion is based on the assumption that a war has broken out and in that case Denmark, as a member of NATO, would already be a target," he told Jyllands-Posten. NATO's European missile defence system is headquartered in Ramstein Germany since 2012. It includes US missile destroying warships in Spain, Patriot anti-missile systems in Turkey, ship borne radar systems carried by several member countries and planned missile interceptors in Romania."

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/26749818/denmark-could-face-attack-if-joins-nato-shield-russian-ambassador/

 

[Jordan]

Oh, Russia!

"Copenhagen (AFP) - Russia's ambassador to Denmark said Saturday that the NATO country's navy could be targeted by nuclear missiles if it joins the Western alliance's anti-missile shield.

The threat made by Ambassador Mikhail Vanin in an opinion piece he wrote for the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten sparked an angry reaction and came amid an increasingly Cold War-style standoff between Moscow and the West."I do not think that the Danes fully understand the consequences of what happens if Denmark joins the US-led missile defence," Ambassador Mikhail Vanin wrote in the daily.

"If this happens Danish warships become targets for Russian nuclear missiles."

Russia has long opposed NATO's missile shield -- launched in 2010 and due to be fully operational by 2025 -- in which member countries contribute radar and weaponry to protect Europe against missile attacks. Denmark has pledged to supply one or more frigates equipped with advanced radar to track incoming missiles. The chairwoman of the Danish parliament's foreign affairs, Mette Gjerskov told AFP that the comments were "very threatening and not necessary" as the missile shield was simply an "intruder alarm" and no danger to Russia.

"This is a way of escalating the verbal tone between Russia and NATO," she said, adding that the comments were also aimed at Russian public opinion. "But it doesn't change the fact that we're not afraid."
Denmark's Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaard said the remarks were "unacceptable rhetoric" and "completely out of proportion. "One should not threaten such serious things as the ambassador has done here," he told news agency Ritzau.
Tensions between Russia and the Nordic countries have risen in recent years with reports of increased Russian airforce incursions in the Baltic region. Holger K. Nielsen, defence spokesman for the Socialist People's Party, which is opposed to Denmark's involvement in the NATO shield, called the ambassador's comments "crazy".


"His opinion is based on the assumption that a war has broken out and in that case Denmark, as a member of NATO, would already be a target," he told Jyllands-Posten. NATO's European missile defence system is headquartered in Ramstein Germany since 2012. It includes US missile destroying warships in Spain, Patriot anti-missile systems in Turkey, ship borne radar systems carried by several member countries and planned missile interceptors in Romania."

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/26749818/denmark-could-face-attack-if-joins-nato-shield-russian-ambassador/

This really gives a new definition to "March Madness."

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I did not say that. Let me clarify. Iraq did have elections, but they were created to satisfy Washington and not other Iraqis.

What does that mean? Are you saying that Washington wanted to have elections, but the Iraqis didn't? Or that the elections were rigged so that the candidates preferred by the U.S. won? If so, where is your evidence that the elections were rigged?

I'm sorry but I have not read one academic work, whether it be a neocon like Fouad Ajami or a leftist like Bassam Haddad and anyone in between, that claimed that is what the U.S. wanted.

Okay, so your sources say that the U.S. did not want reconciliation between the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds? Then what are they saying we wanted? More internal conflict that would cost more U.S. lives??

I can't speak to what you've read, but I recall reading a shitload of stuff at the time saying that sectarian reconciliation was exactly what we wanted. I've spoken to plenty of people who've been over there, including a 4 star general, and they all say that's exactly what we were working for. And they were the ones on the ground trying to make it happen.

We also publicly opposed those like Moqtada Al-Sadr who were more sectarian, and backed efforts at reconciliation. Here's just one article -- and similar stories were all over the place ten years ago -- where the U.S. was making concrete steps to promote reconciliation between Shia and Sunni:

http://www.usip.org/programs/projects/provincial-level-reconciliation-support-in-iraq/training

I disagree but fine.

What's the nature of your disagreement? I said that the U.S. should not necessarily support all democracy, but rather support democracy that includes a recognition of basic human rights for everyone. So on what point do you disagree?

What should the US support throughout the globe?

That's such an open-ended question that it's pretty much impossible to answer on a message board with any level of specificity. So I'll just state that we should generally support democratic regimes that are respectful of individual rights and that do not pose an aggressive threat to their neighbors. The form in which that support should take, and qualifiers/limitations on that general guidance, depend on the specifics of a given situation.

I am confused about how you feel in regards to arming Ukraine?

I've already stated that we should arm them, and why. So you'll need to be more specific.

If it is not for human rights, which is what Egypt was transforming into, what is it?

Again, you'll need to narrow this question because I don't understand what you're asking.

If it is any help, I do not believe that even a democratically elected Islamic state is a desireable end state, if that Islamic component includes the prohibitions against apostasy, blasephemy, and proselytizing that I've previously.discussed. Depending on how strictly those things are applied, and a bunch of other factors, it may be acceptable as an intermediate step to something better.

 

[gourimoko]

What does that mean? Are you saying that Washington wanted to have elections, but the Iraqis didn't? Or that the elections were rigged so that the candidates preferred by the U.S. won? If so, where is your evidence that the elections were rigged?

Umm.. Nouri al-Maliki was literally installed as the Iraqi PM by the CIA and ruled the country for 8 years. This is undisputed AFAIK.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Umm.. Nouri al-Maliki was literally installed as the Iraqi PM by the CIA and ruled the country for 8 years. This is undisputed AFAIK.

Of course that's disputed. Al-Maliki was elected by the members of the newly-elected National Assembly in the summer of 2006. If you've got proof to the contrary, let's see it.

I'd point out two relevant facts:

1) The U.S. government had complete free rein during the period before elections in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority -- the U.S. government -- selected the members of the original governing council. That U.S. selected council chose Allawi, not al-Maliki, as the first PM. Allawi was in office until May 2005, then it was al-Jafari until May 2006. In other words, during the first three years when our ability to influence the selection of the Iraqi PM was at its highest, we selected two guys other than al-Maliki.

2) al-Maliki was a huge pain in the ass for the U.S., especially when it came time to try to renegotiate a SOFA in 2010. If he was truly nothing more than a U.S. puppet, and Iraqi elections were simply charades with the U.S. actually controlling the result, why couldn't we "install" a more favorable/compliant PM during the 2010 parliamentary elections?

 

[Jordan]

What does that mean? Are you saying that Washington wanted to have elections, but the Iraqis didn't? Or that the elections were rigged so that the candidates preferred by the U.S. won? If so, where is your evidence that the elections were rigged?



Okay, so your sources say that the U.S. did not want reconciliation between the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds? Then what are they saying we wanted? More internal conflict that would cost more U.S. lives??

I can't speak to what you've read, but I recall reading a shitload of stuff at the time saying that sectarian reconciliation was exactly what we wanted. I've spoken to plenty of people who've been over there, including a 4 star general, and they all say that's exactly what we were working for. And they were the ones on the ground trying to make it happen.

We also publicly opposed those like Moqtada Al-Sadr who were more sectarian, and backed efforts at reconciliation. Here's just one article -- and similar stories were all over the place ten years ago -- where the U.S. was making concrete steps to promote reconciliation between Shia and Sunni:

http://www.usip.org/programs/projects/provincial-level-reconciliation-support-in-iraq/training

What's the nature of your disagreement? I said that the U.S. should not necessarily support all democracy, but rather support democracy that includes a recognition of basic human rights for everyone. So on what point do you disagree?



That's such an open-ended question that it's pretty much impossible to answer on a message board with any level of specificity. So I'll just state that we should generally support democratic regimes that are respectful of individual rights and that do not pose an aggressive threat to their neighbors. The form in which that support should take, and qualifiers/limitations on that general guidance, depend on the specifics of a given situation.



I've already stated that we should arm them, and why. So you'll need to be more specific.



Again, you'll need to narrow this question because I don't understand what you're asking.

If it is any help, I do not believe that even a democratically elected Islamic state is a desireable end state, if that Islamic component includes the prohibitions against apostasy, blasephemy, and proselytizing that I've previously.discussed. Depending on how strictly those things are applied, and a bunch of other factors, it may be acceptable as an intermediate step to something better.

I'm not going to go point by point because I really do respect where you are coming from. I'm just going to address a few brief issues.

1) I think ideally the United States would have loved a democratic Iraqi government that supported all rights but certain issues carried precedence over others. I.E., Washington was more concerned with Iraqi stability than the regime's concern for human rights. Hence why America was quiet during de-Baathification.
2) I'm not trying to dismiss what the military did whatsoever. It was incredibly honorable. But the groups the CIA supported during the election, without regard for the military, did result in Maliki's appointment. The U.S. ultimately regretted that but their was definite involvement in support for him, as well as other popular, strong candidates, as opposed to popular Sunni and/or Kurdish leaders.
3) You stated, and I quote, "we should generally support democratic regimes that are respectful of individual rights and that do not pose an aggressive threat to their neighbors." I understand this was a general statement so I am going to ask a question for you to specify. Should the United States support Israel and to what degree? I.E., yes, we should, but not give aid, etc.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm not going to go point by point because I really do respect where you are coming from. I'm just going to address a few brief issues.

1) I think ideally the United States would have loved a democratic Iraqi government that supported all rights but certain issues carried precedence over others. I.E., Washington was more concerned with Iraqi stability than the regime's concern for human rights. Hence why America was quiet during de-Baathification.

I'd agree with this. There were a bunch of competing interests, and the option to get everything we wanted -- democratic regime, respect for human rights, stability, etc., really wasn't on the table. We had to prioritize as best we could, in good faith.

2) I'm not trying to dismiss what the military did whatsoever. It was incredibly honorable. But the groups the CIA supported during the election, without regard for the military, did result in Maliki's appointment. The U.S. ultimately regretted that but their was definite involvement in support for him, as well as other popular, strong candidates, as opposed to popular Sunni and/or Kurdish leaders.

You're going to need to be more specific about what the CIA was doing. I won't argue that the U.S. supported some groups over others, but absent specifics, it's tough to evaluate the merits of that because Iranians and other outsiders also were supporting various groups. And ultimately, the Iraqi people, not the U.S, did elect the slate of candidates they elected.

3) You stated, and I quote, "we should generally support democratic regimes that are respectful of individual rights and that do not pose an aggressive threat to their neighbors." I understand this was a general statement so I am going to ask a question for you to specify. Should the United States support Israel and to what degree? I.E., yes, we should, but not give aid, etc.

I think we should continue to support them as we generally have in the past.

 

[Jordan]

I'd agree with this. There were a bunch of competing interests, and the option to get everything we wanted -- democratic regime, respect for human rights, stability, etc., really wasn't on the table. We had to prioritize as best we could, in good faith.

Yeah I definitely agree here. I'm glad we agree on something.

You're going to need to be more specific about what the CIA was doing. I won't argue that the U.S. supported some groups over others, but absent specifics, it's tough to evaluate the merits of that because Iranians and other outsiders also were supporting various groups. And ultimately, the Iraqi people, not the U.S, did elect the slate of candidates they elected.

Washington developed the IGC (Iraqi Governing Council) in 2003 and engaged in a form of consociationalism because they supported the Shi'a leaders. Years after, during Iraq's elections, this determined how and who could vote for certain candidates. This resulted in the United States aiming for a leader who prioritized stability over inclusivity.

I think we should continue to support them as we generally have in the past.

Okay, cool. So what's the bright-line? Like, at what point should a lack of human rights considerations result in a lack of support for a regime?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Washington developed the IGC (Iraqi Governing Council) in 2003 and engaged in a form of consociationalism because they supported the Shi'a leaders. Years after, during Iraq's elections, this determined how and who could vote for certain candidates.This resulted in the United States aiming for a leader who prioritized stability over inclusivity.

Then I really don't see what this has to do with the nefarious CIA insinuations. This was all completely above board, and since the Shi'a leaders represented the majority of the population, it was going to be pretty tough to have a government where they weren't running things. Unless you didn't want to have democracy at all, and just impose a chosen government directly (other than in the interim period before elections".

I don't think the U.S. believed that true stability was possible without inclusivity. And inclusivity isn't even possible if you don't have some level of stability, because you won't even have a functioning government capable of being "inclusive".

If there was an alternative candidate who 1) had sufficient overall support within the Assembly and within Iraq to provide stability, and 2) would have been sufficiently inclusive to cement that stability, while respecting human rights, etc., we'd have been all over it. Why wouldn't we be?

The truth is that our ability to influence that government was constrained by the results of the elections. We damn sure weren't happy to see al-Sadr's supporters get seats, but it happened. Allawi came across as more secular and inclusive, but he was perceived as a Ba'athist by some, and lost support.

Okay, cool. So what's the bright-line? Like, at what point should a lack of human rights considerations result in a lack of support for a regime?

Are you asking about Israel, or looking for a more generally-applicable rule?

In terms of general rules, I don't think there is a bright line. So many different factors go into determining "human rights considerations" that the permutations are pretty endless. You'd also look at how a particular regime measures up with its neighbors, the likely effect of not providing support, the alternatives to the current regime, whether it is making efforts to improve, internal and external threats, etc..

So, I can't provide a "formula" or specific bright-line test. What may rightly be deemed completely unacceptable in one nation may be the best you can reasonably expect in another.

In the case of Israel, I'll just say that the actions and rhetoric of its opponents in the ME are shitty enough that I cut the Jews a lot of slack.

 

[gourimoko]

Then I really don't see what this has to do with the nefarious CIA insinuations.

I don't think you're in full command of the facts here if you're not aware of the CIA oversight with respect to the Iraqi elections and the selection of their prime minister.

It's not a "nefarious CIA insinuation" it's a publicly known fact.

In the case of Israel, I'll just say that the actions and rhetoric of its opponents in the ME are shitty enough that I cut the Jews a lot of slack.

How does Israel == "Jews" in this context? You do realize that more than 25% of their population isn't Jewish, and more than 60% of their Jewish population is Mizrahim (who are actively discriminated against in Israel)?

That's why so many people, in Israel, found Netanyahu's comments about Arab voters so offensive, even those who voted for Netanyahu (Mizrahim generally vote right).

Not every Israeli is Jewish, and not every Jew is a Zionist; and even among the Zionists, many are of Arab descent (although they self-identify generally as simply being Sephardi).

This is goes back to me explaining to you that "Jew" does not denote a race of people. It's a religion and a culture. Just as is Christianity and Islam.

Inter-Jewish racism exists and is prevalent in Israel, and it is based on the same forms of racism that exists in Europe and America.

To that end, there exists a much more serious human rights crisis in Israel/Palestine.

I don't think we should be cutting anyone "slack" when it comes to human rights violations.

But this is way off-topic.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I don't think you're in full command of the facts here if you're not aware of the CIA oversight with respect to the Iraqi elections and the selection of their prime minister.

I asked you before for evidence of this, but instead of providing any, you've just repeated the same thing as if repeating it somehow makes it true. It doesn't.

The fact that the U.S. government -- not the CIA -- selected the members of the governing council, and that it preferred a more moderate government over one that would be led by someone like Moqtada al-Sadr, or one that would be beholden to Iran, wasn't a secret. Crocker spoke about that, the Secretary of State spoke about it, and maybe the President as well. They're not in the CIA.

How does Israel == "Jews" in this context? You do realize that more than 25% of their population isn't Jewish, and more than 60% of their Jewish population is Mizrahim (who are actively discriminated against in Israel)?

I was using a euphemism, so fine, change the point to "the Israelis" if you want.

I don't think we should be cutting anyone "slack" when it comes to human rights violations.

And I don't think it is wise to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Cutting off support for a less-than-perfect ally who will then have to face worse enemies whose outside support will continue despite their conduct doesn't advance the cause of human rights at all in my opinion. All it accomplishes is to let some of us feel smug and righteous.