Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Paradise Lost
Feb 11, 2003

kill your enemy, drink his wine, and take his women

Cold/hot weather injury tags

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd9rsmD4HiM

Linking without comment beyond that it touches on some foreign policy issues (Euro and elsewhere) and also briefly on energy policy, and that I wish we could have public debates like this here. It's a pretty good watch if you have the time.

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


Yesterday Russia pulled its ambassador to NATO. I'm not really sure this has much significance but it does exemplify the tit-for-tat stance Russia is taking, claiming that it is only reacting in kind to Western aggressions.

Russia is also significantly expanding the military draft in the Dagestan and Caucasus regions. Previously they avoided pulling from these areas to avoid bringing related ethnic problems into the military community, but apparently have now weighed the cost-benefit differently. It is unclear if this increased draft will be met with reductions among ethnic Russian areas (whose young male populations are declining anyway) or if it's intended as part of a bulking up of military manpower. It's worth noting that drafting able-bodied men from non-'Russian' territories, often shipping them off to other parts of the realm without any real intention of ever returning them, is an old traditional tactic of ethnic dissolution going back to Tsarist times (this is how my great grandfather and other family members ended up in the Tsar's army and the Revolution.)

Richard Bong
Dec 11, 2008


Your family chased my family out of Russia.

MazelTovCocktail
Jun 23, 2012

Gritty's gonna cut you.


In Ukraine news Darth Vader was prevented from registered for the election.

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26882664

quote:

Ukrainian authorities have rejected a bid from a man calling himself Darth Vader, who wants to run in the presidential elections.

The man, who appears in the costume of the fictional character from the Star Wars films and is often accompanied by people dressed in other Star Wars outfits, was nominated for the presidency by the Internet Party of Ukraine. Earlier he told the party's congress that he wanted to turn Ukraine into "a galactic empire".

But the country's Central Electoral Commission says parts of Darth Vader's application were "questionable" and some paperwork was probably forged. Apparently, the man is really an electrician called Viktor Shevchenko, who changed his name to Darth Vader in March.

But at least one commission member suggests Darth Vader's campaign could be an attempt to discredit the upcoming election - possibly by Russia, which does not recognise the Ukraine's interim government. "It may seem like an innocent joke, but someone paid 2.5m hryvnyas ($227,000) for this joke," says Ihor Zhydenko, referring to the deposit that must be given along with the application.

Zhydenko adds that Darth Vader might run for the presidency in Russia, where he has received extensive media coverage. "They already have little green men," he says, referring to Russian troops in the Crimea region. "Such a commander-in-chief would be appropriate."

Twenty-three candidates have been registered to run in the snap presidential election in Ukraine on 25 May. The election was called after President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted following months of protests.

Check out 2:35 on for the "Assassination Attempt" during his last conference.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4yVdqwOqA4

Whip Slagcheek
Sep 21, 2008

Finally
The Gasoline And Dynamite
Will Light The Sky
For The Night




Operation American Spring

Crazy people website posted:

Concept of Operations:
Phase 1 - Field millions, as many as ten million, patriots who will assemble in a peaceful, non-violent, physically unarmed (Spiritually/Constitutionally armed), display of unswerving loyalty to the US Constitution and against the incumbent government leadership in Washington D.C., with the mission to replace with law abiding leadership. Go full-bore, no looking back, steadfast in the mission.

Phase 2 - One million or more of the assembled 10 million must be prepared to stay in D.C. as long as it takes to see Obama, Biden, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, Pelosi, and Attorney General Holder removed from office.
Consistent with the US Constitution, as required, the U.S. Congress will take appropriate action, execute appropriate legislation, deal with vacancies, or U.S. States will appoint replacements for positions vacated consistent with established constitutional requirements.

Phase 3 - Those with the principles of a West, Cruz, Dr. Ben Carson, Lee, DeMint, Paul, Gov Walker, Sessions, Gowdy, Jordan, should comprise a tribunal and assume positions of authority to convene investigations, recommend appropriate charges against politicians and government employees to the new U.S. Attorney General appointed by the new President.

lol. Good to see the summer crazy people season is starting early for DC.

permabanned
Aug 12, 2008

優しい野菜


The special forces have already been moved into Ukraine and some are moving into EU. ~1000 people in total.

Snowdens Secret posted:

^^^ I haven't seen anything about it but this mentions Afghanistan:

Chalk this up as another of the many, many things getting neglected by State while they focus on Israel / Palestine talks that will never go anywhere:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/world/asia/years-after-obama-hailed-warming-ties-with-india-the-temperature-has-fallen.html


It looks pretty likely that the next Indian Prime Minister is going to be a guy we've routinely denied a visa to, so I wouldn't expect him to go out of his way to boost relations.

Their military avionics are made in Russia, they can't cut themselves away from the spare parts and maintenance supply.

permabanned fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Apr 4, 2014

gleep gloop
Aug 16, 2005

GROSS SHIT

Snowdens Secret posted:

I don't know about issuing weapons but I am fully for Army personnel on domestic bases being required to wear full SAPI plate, helmet, eyepro at all times (plus reflective belts)

lmfao yes

joat mon
Oct 15, 2009

I am the master of my lamp;
I am the captain of my tub.


Whip Slagcheek posted:

Operation American Spring

lol. Good to see the summer crazy people season is starting early for DC.

I wonder how they're deriving "comprise a tribunal" from "unswerving loyalty to the US Constitution" as the only tribunals in the Constitution are courts answerable to the Supreme Court.
Perhaps they're using a different usage of 'tribunal.'

A French concept, given the name of a movement associated (in the popular mind) with the Muslim Brotherhood - a pedigree the 10 million american spring members can surely get behind.

Zeroisanumber
Oct 23, 2010


Nap Ghost

Whip Slagcheek posted:

Operation American Spring


lol. Good to see the summer crazy people season is starting early for DC.

Keep a photo album. You can show your kids how hosed-up politics in our time was.

Frosted Flake
Sep 13, 2011


permabanned posted:

The special forces have already been moved into Ukraine and some are moving into EU. ~1000 people in total.

Wait, whose special forces?

That seems like crazy brinkmanship.

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJK00daiKD8

Skip to about 3:00 if you're bored but watch the whole thing for the full effect. I thought about putting it in the drunk thread instead.

permabanned
Aug 12, 2008

優しい野菜


Frosted Flake posted:

Wait, whose special forces?

That seems like crazy brinkmanship.
Ukraine isn't a member of NATO, even though some Ukrainian troops participated in FOB maintenance operations and small-scale patrol duty in Iraq.

Detachments of the special forces of the Russian paratroops for the Ukraine - 55 men per regiment. GRU 'engineering' forces for the rest of the EU.

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd


permabanned posted:

Ukraine isn't a member of NATO, even though some Ukrainian troops participated in FOB maintenance operations and small-scale patrol duty in Iraq.

Detachments of the special forces of the Russian paratroops for the Ukraine - 55 men per regiment. GRU 'engineering' forces for the rest of the EU.

So just so we're clear, you're claiming that the Russians are deploying (covert) military forces into the "rest of the EU" (which presumably includes NATO countries)?

I'll completely buy them moving into Ukraine but NATO countries is loving insane and you need to provide a source.

(Because I don't believe you.)

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


I don't know anything about no Russian Special Forces but Hagel's talking about sending another 5,000 troops to Europe permanently
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-04/hagel-says-u-s-mulls-adding-brigade-to-counter-russia.html

quote:

Asked if those included permanently stationing a third brigade of 5,000 troops in Europe, Hagel said, “That’s all part of the measures that could be considered.”
...
As part of a U.S. defense strategy approved in 2012 by President Barack Obama, the Pentagon withdrew from Europe two of its four Army brigades, including 10,000 troops and their equipment, and eliminated them. The strategy assumed Europe would remain peaceful and Russia would be a partner rather than an antagonist, laying the foundation for the administration to turn more of its attention to Asia.

I guess he's hoping the Euros just pull the funding from behind their ears or something. The Poles want two brigades stationed in Poland so I guess they're ready to come up with something.

pantslesswithwolves
Oct 27, 2008

Ba-dam ba-DUMMMMMM


Whip Slagcheek posted:

Operation American Spring


lol. Good to see the summer crazy people season is starting early for DC.

Hope this turns out to be like that Truckers' Ride for the Constitution where I was promised big rigs blocking every street in DC and instead got the usual 495 traffic.

That being said, I'd love to see the Million Rascal Scooter Caravan.

MazelTovCocktail
Jun 23, 2012

Gritty's gonna cut you.


suboptimal posted:

Hope this turns out to be like that Truckers' Ride for the Constitution where I was promised big rigs blocking every street in DC and instead got the usual 495 traffic.

That being said, I'd love to see the Million Rascal Scooter Caravan.

Just go to a Walmart Supercenter for that.

Mike-o
Dec 25, 2004

Now I'm in your room
And I'm in your bed




Grimey Drawer

suboptimal posted:

That being said, I'd love to see the Million Rascal Scooter Caravan.

That happens every day at Walmart.

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


suboptimal posted:

Hope this turns out to be like that Truckers' Ride for the Constitution where I was promised big rigs blocking every street in DC and instead got the usual 495 traffic.

That being said, I'd love to see the Million Rascal Scooter Caravan.

The only places Google's showing it mentioned are Wonkette, Mother Jones and Infowars so it's a safe bet it's some two-bit crank pulled into the light for everyone to laugh at. The Truckers' Ride got a lot more press, even if it was just for mockery / explaining why the idea was stupid. The daily news cycle on the normal 'right wing' sites today is all Leland Yee, that Mozilla guy getting lynched, and how the new Captain America movie is crap.

Snowdens Secret fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Apr 4, 2014

Zeroisanumber
Oct 23, 2010


Nap Ghost

Snowdens Secret posted:

The Poles want two brigades stationed in Poland so I guess they're ready to come up with something.

Don't the Poles have a pretty decent military? I thought I remembered reading that they punch a bit above their weight.

psydude
Mar 31, 2008

Perry'd.


Zeroisanumber posted:

Don't the Poles have a pretty decent military? I thought I remembered reading that they punch a bit above their weight.

According to Wikipedia they have 120,000 active members and another 515,000 reservists and their budget is 1.95% of GDP, which is higher than Canada or Australia.

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


Here's the Polish request for 10k troops: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-territory.html

There's this article on Polish mil strength: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/2ae1e101196d

But light wiki'ing implies it's exaggerated, because the equipment numbers are swollen with obsolete Warsaw Pact leftovers that have been or are being retired.

The Poles may punch above their weight, but that's because like most of the old Soviet satellites they're drat near weightless. Their GDP is much lower than the rest of the Western world, so their 2% budget is far less significant than it looks. Russia probably has more men and equipment mobilized in/around Ukraine right now than the entire Polish army force.

And yes, Poland is part of NATO, but the counterpart to Poland punching above its weight is that an awful lot of western NATO countries punch well below theirs; the last few weeks have been full of articles about this but I figure you guys'd get tired of them after the fifth or sixth. An example:

quote:

General Sir Richard Shirreff, the outgoing Nato deputy supreme commander, became the latest senior commander to express fears about defence cuts.

Britain’s armed forces have been “cut to the bone” under the Coalition and plans to substitute regular soldiers for reservists is “one hell of a risk”, he said.
The Royal Navy is no longer able to take part in maritime operations, he told the Sunday Times.

“A hollowed-out navy means you can’t project power. I’ve heard this said in the Ministry of Defence: ‘The yardstick by which we measure ourselves is our ability to punch above our weight.’ You can’t do that now. By that yardstick, therefore, we are failing.”

And another:

quote:

As Theodore Roosevelt once quipped, words only go so far. They can even do you harm if you don’t think them through or back them up. Is it truly in the American interest to admit additional former Soviet republics, such as Georgia, into NATO? If so, is the United States willing and able to defend these new commitments if confronted? Answering the former should generate healthy debate, but America’s response to the latter must be clear and definitive. Expanding American defense commitments without building and maintaining the force needed to protect them is not only strategically incoherent; it risks a far more dangerous outcome than not proclaiming anything at all. Speaking loudly without a stick is a recipe for disaster.
...
Ironically, just as Russia used its ground forces to destabilize its second country in six years, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel argued for additional steep defense cuts coming on top of his predecessors’ efforts in previous years. In addition to cuts to the other services, Hagel declared, “we are no longer sizing the force for prolonged stability operations” and proposed cutting the Army down to 440,000—its smallest size since World War II—and further reducing the American footprint in Europe. The United States, Hagel argued, no longer needs to “kill enemy tanks on a Cold War battlefield” and therefore will retire all 340 A-10 ground-attack aircraft, which saw extensive action as recently as 2011 in Libya. Additionally, sequestration will likely permanently sideline the KC-10s, air-to-air refueling tankers useful for long-range force projection. For the first time in 13 years, Hagel beamed, the White House was presenting a budget “that’s not a war-footing budget.”

If, however, as some have argued, a “new Cold War” is indeed in the offing, then the strategic assumptions underlying these cuts are questionable. Unlike in the Pacific, deterring Russia is largely a ground and air endeavor. While the United States need not worry about Soviet hordes pouring through the Fulda Gap, deploying additional ground forces and tank-killing aircraft to neighboring states as a tripwire would both reassure jittery allies and deter potential Russian aggression. Given Ukraine’s size and Georgia’s distance, an American commitment to either would place additional demand on some of the force projection capabilities that the Administration seeks to eliminate. Adding insult to injury, the Obama Administration has proposed a 28 percent cut for a Pentagon program that seeks to modernize the Ukrainian armed forces. If America intends to keep its word, it must be willing to pay the bill.
...
At the moment, while there is a consensus about stopping about Russia, the political Left refuses to maintain a force capable of doing so, and neither the Left nor the Right has the appetite for getting into a land war. Functionally, the United States has two paths forward: It can either shrink its commitments to match its reduced posture, or it can ramp up its force to meet its expanding responsibilities, understanding that it may need to use them, if Russia forces NATO to show its hand. Expanding NATO to new members without committing the resources and political will to defend them is not only inconsistent, but also dangerous and irresponsible. Tragically, this appears to be exactly the course the Obama Administration wants to take: expanding U.S. defense obligations while simultaneously slashing its capacity to fulfill them. The Administration that came into office promising a “smarter” approach to foreign policy would instead be guilty of doing the converse of Roosevelt’s adage: speaking loudly while retiring the stick.

And that's kind of the problem. Because of similar sentiments to that survey I linked a few days ago, there's question of whether a NATO response would be swift and sure enough to repel, say, a Russian invasion of Poland, before the entire country is seized. Once the country is seized, the political will to wage a war of liberation will be greatly reduced. Poland's not dumb, they know the deterrent effect ten thousand American troops have, and knows if they were attacked that 10,000 encircled or imprisoned American soldiers will be a much greater motivator than Pollack cries for help.

psydude
Mar 31, 2008

Perry'd.


One of the things to take into consideration with Poland is that not only is their military an all-volunteer force, but they're substantially better trained than their Russian counterparts (whose ranks are largely conscripted).

Obviously they're not on the same level as say, France, but they're certainly not Georgia.

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a2f92aa6-bbb5-11e3-84f1-00144feabdc0.html

quote:

The Obama administration has warned Beijing not to use force or coercive tactics to pursue its territorial claims in Asia, saying that sanctions placed on Russia for annexing Crimea should have a “chilling effect” on any such plans in China.

Daniel Russel, the top east Asia official at the state department, on Thursday said China’s neighbours, particularly in southeast Asia, had heightened concerns about the “possibility of China increasingly threatening force or other forms of coercion to advance their territorial interests” following Russia’s actions in Crimea.

“The tolerance in the region for steps by China that appear to presage a more muscular approach has gone down, as their alarm over Russian action and annexation of Crimea has increased,” Mr Russel told a Senate committee.

He said China was “thinking hard” about the international response to Russia’s move partly because of its economic linkages with the US and its neighbours.

The good news is that China would probably be more reactive to sanctions, the bad news is that we may be no more able to place them on China than Euroland is on Russia.

There's also a theory that Russia is holding back in the West for fear if they get too bogged down there, the Chinese will take a bite out of their rear end in the East, but I think that's an unrealistic short-term concern given the info we have.

Fojar38
Sep 1, 2011


Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia


also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->


At the same time the Japanese are worried that the US wouldn't respond militarily if the Chinese opted to seize, say, the Senkaku's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/06/world/asia/us-response-to-crimea-worries-japanese-leaders.html?hp

quote:

TOKYO — When President Bill Clinton signed a 1994 agreement promising to “respect” the territorial integrity of Ukraine if it gave up its nuclear weapons, there was little thought then of how that obscure diplomatic pact — called the Budapest Memorandum — might affect the long-running defense partnership between the United States and Japan.

But now, as American officials have distanced themselves from the Budapest Memorandum in light of Russia’s takeover of Crimea, calling promises made in Budapest “nonbinding,” the United States is being forced at the same time to make reassurances in Asia. Japanese officials, a senior American military official said, “keep asking, ‘Are you going to do the same thing to us when something happens?’ ”

For Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who arrived in Tokyo on Saturday for two days of talks with Japan’s leaders, including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, America’s longstanding promise to protect Japan against hostile nations (read: China and North Korea) has suddenly come under the microscope. The American response to the Russian takeover of Crimea, which President Obama has condemned while at the same time ruling out American military action, has caused deep concern among already skittish Japanese officials.

“The Crimea is a game-changer,” said Kunihiko Miyake, a former adviser to Mr. Abe who is now research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies in Tokyo. “This is not fire on a distant shore for us. What is happening is another attempt by a rising power to change the status quo.” As an example, he pointed to China’s challenge to Japanese control of the Senkaku Islands, the uninhabited rocks in the East China Sea that Beijing claims under the name Diaoyu Islands.

One Japanese official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity, “We are just looking for a commitment from the American side.”

Obama administration officials say they stand by the American commitment to protect Japan, while refraining from explicitly stating that the United States would intervene militarily in the Senkakus dispute.

“There is no indication or weakness on the part of the United States as to our complete and absolute commitment to the security of Japan,” Mr. Hagel said, speaking to reporters aboard his flight to Japan.

“We will make that again clear over the next two weeks,” he added, referring to his own meetings with the Japanese as well as Mr. Obama’s planned trip to the region later this month.

Upon landing at Yokota Air Base just outside Tokyo to speak to a group of American and Japanese troops, Mr. Hagel said he was in Japan to reaffirm America’s “continued commitment to our partnership, our friendship and our treaty obligations.”

“We are serious about that,” he said.

A Defense Department official traveling with Mr. Hagel pointed on Saturday to the mutual security treaty between the United States and Japan as proof that the United States would protect Japan if necessary. “There is absolutely no wavering,” he said.

But in meetings over the last few weeks, Obama administration officials said, Japanese officials have been seeking reassurances that the security treaty will apply to the Senkakus.

Last year, China set off a trans-Pacific uproar when it declared that an “air defense identification zone” gave it the right to identify and possibly take military action against aircraft near the islands. Japan refused to recognize China’s claim, and the United States has been defying China ever since by sending military planes into the zone unannounced, even as the Obama administration advised American commercial airlines to comply with China’s demand and notify Beijing in advance of flights.

The chief of staff of the Japanese military’s joint staff, Gen. Shigeru Iwasaki, met on Thursday with Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Washington to discuss security concerns. The two men “addressed geopolitical trends in the Asia-Pacific region and the need to strengthen the alliance’s deterrence and response capability,” the Pentagon said after the meeting on Thursday.

American officials say there is a wealth of difference between Ukraine and Japan, and between Crimea and the Senkakus. What is more, they say, there is a big difference between the Budapest Memorandum and the mutual security treaty with Japan that was signed in 1952 and that has redefined American-Japanese relations in the 60 years since.

The treaty, which also provides for the continued presence of American military bases in Japan, establishes that any attack against Japan would require the United States to respond. The Budapest Memorandum, by contrast, simply refers to security assurances for Ukraine that are not defined, and have been widely interpreted as less than a military guarantee of intervention.

Still, some Japanese analysts said the American response to the Crimea crisis had not inspired confidence. They expressed fears that the Obama administration’s trumpeted strategic refocus on Asia, which was welcomed here, will weaken as the United States commits more forces to counterbalance Russia in Eastern Europe.

“The Crimea makes us feel uneasy about whether the United States has not only the resolve but the strength to stop China,” said Satoru Nagao, an expert on security issues at Gakushuin University in Tokyo. “Between the Pentagon budget cuts, and the need to put more forces in Europe, can the United States still offer a credible deterrence?”

Specifically, some analysts said they feared China might feel emboldened by the American response to Crimea to try something similar in Senkaku/Diaoyu.

So far, Japanese policy makers have refrained from openly criticizing the United States for failing to sufficiently address Japanese concerns.

“Japanese diplomats absolutely won’t say this in public for fear of hurting the alliance,” said Akio Takahata, a professor of security issues at Hakuoh University near Tokyo, “but they will air their concerns behind closed doors, for sure.”

Japanese experts said Mr. Hagel, and also Mr. Obama when he visits Tokyo later this month, might be pressed for not only verbal assurances, but also some sort of symbolic action to show that America would handle a crisis in the East China Sea differently from the one in Crimea. Some analysts and former policy makers were blunt in saying that a failure to come to Japan’s aid in a clash over the Senkakus/Diaoyu islands could spell the end of the two nations’ postwar alliance.

“If Japan is attacked, and the Americans decline to respond, then it is time from the Americans to pull out” of their bases here, Mr. Miyake said. “Without those bases, America is not going to be a Pacific power anymore. America knows that.”

It bears noting however that the American alliance with Japan is far more important than anything Ukraine offers, and far more relevant to American interests.

It should also be kept in mind that Japanese conservatives have been looking for any excuse they can find to rearm and get an power-projection military plus nukes, so this could simply be them seizing on the opportunity to push that.

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd


So did Ukraine seriously think that the Budapest Memorandum was a binding document that committed the US to come rushing to defend their territorial integrity?

I'm sorry, I don't understand how it's suddenly US "weakness" because a bunch of drunk Eastern Europeans couldn't be bothered to understand basic loving language in a non-binding memorandum. Guess you should've had someone halfway competent in the reading comprehension department heading up your foreign policy thinking?

Also yes, this is 100% an effort by the right-wingers in Japan to use the issue to further bolster their push to get a real military.

\/ welp \/

iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 5, 2014

NIGGER DEATH TURBO
Jul 4, 2013

by Lowtax


iyaayas01 posted:

So did Ukraine seriously think that the Budapest Memorandum was a binding document that committed the US to come rushing to defend their territorial integrity?

I'm sorry, I don't understand how it's suddenly US "weakness" because a bunch of drunk Eastern Europeans couldn't be bothered to understand basic loving language in a non-binding memorandum. Guess you should've had someone halfway competent in the reading comprehension department heading up your foreign policy thinking?

Also yes, this is 100% an effort by the right-wingers in Japan to use the issue to further bolster their push to get a real military.

apparently that is a large part of why ukraine let their military decay to the point it has, they legitimately thought the US and the UK would step in and protect them in the event they got invaded

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


The Budapest Memorandum isn't quite as open and shut as iyaayas is making out. This is practically the whole thing:

quote:

1. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

5. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

6. The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

Points 4 and 5 are clearly about nukes, but 1, 2, 3 are not, and it's arguable that Russia has violated all three (you can argue whether Russia has 'used' their weapons in Crimea or not.)

The big problem (from Ukraine's side) with the BM is, as the above text makes obvious, the only actual commitment in case of violation is to 'consult', which has been done (and is a total waste of time) and even if Ukraine was bathed in atomic fire the most action necessary is to bring it up in front of the UNSC (where all signatories have a veto anyway.) So basically we've followed the letter of the law, but clearly not done what at least the Ukrainians thought was intended, and it's understandable if countries without extremely explicit mutual defense agreements (i.e. NATO) are re-evaluating their dependency on the US umbrella.

And it's not because we're not running in guns a-blazin', it's because we explicitly and immediately ruled out use of force, which is a very different stance.

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd


Snowdens Secret posted:

The Budapest Memorandum isn't quite as open and shut as iyaayas is making out. This is practically the whole thing:


Points 4 and 5 are clearly about nukes, but 1, 2, 3 are not, and it's arguable that Russia has violated all three (you can argue whether Russia has 'used' their weapons in Crimea or not.)

The big problem (from Ukraine's side) with the BM is, as the above text makes obvious, the only actual commitment in case of violation is to 'consult', which has been done (and is a total waste of time) and even if Ukraine was bathed in atomic fire the most action necessary is to bring it up in front of the UNSC (where all signatories have a veto anyway.) So basically we've followed the letter of the law, but clearly not done what at least the Ukrainians thought was intended, and it's understandable if countries without extremely explicit mutual defense agreements (i.e. NATO) are re-evaluating their dependency on the US umbrella.

And it's not because we're not running in guns a-blazin', it's because we explicitly and immediately ruled out use of force, which is a very different stance.

Again, I don't understand how the Ukrainians thought that it was anything other than a feel good piece of paper that convinced them (stupidly) to give up their nukes. Because that's all it was. If they honestly thought a piece of paper that the Russians agreed to right after the Wall came down was going to be enough to ever prevent them from being under threat of Russian aggression, they're loving idiots. And if we're going to play word games with what meant what, you could make a case that the UK violated paragraph three first through their inducement to get Ukraine to join the EU.

It's worth mentioning that most of the non-NATO countries who would fall under our umbrella have explicit mutual defense agreements with us (Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the Philippines are the first that immediately come to mind.) The big ones that aren't on that list would be countries in the Middle East, but that has always been a much thornier region as far as US engagement so I'd find it hard to believe that any of the players in the region (Israel, Saudis, the other Gulf States) would be hugely surprised if the US failed to fully come to their aid in a questionable circumstance.

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


Just taking Japan as an example, though, the text isn't that different:

quote:

ARTICLE V
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack against either Party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall be immediately reported to the Security Council of the United Nations in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Charter. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

...

ARTICLE VII
This Treaty does not affect and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations of the Parties under the Charter of the United Nations or the responsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Again, any attack gets reported to the UNSC, which is explicitly not required to do anything about it. "Act to meet the common danger" can mean a lot of things. It should be noted that it's a lot more vague than NATO Article V:

quote:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

The NATO text expects action explicitly including 'use of armed force' before or at most in parallel with UNSC action, not gated by it. That's a huuuuge difference if you're getting attacked by a UNSC veto holder. There's also a world of difference between recognizing an attack 'is dangerous to (our) peace and safety' and 'shall be considered an attack against them all'. All sorts of poo poo is dangerous to our peace and safety that we don't spin up the bombers for.

The Japan agreement also includes the wiggle text 'in accordance with its constitutional provisions and processes.' That quite obviously was put in there as part of restricting Japan to self defense - the entire agreement was foisted on the relatively unwilling Japanese - but it could be interpreted by a recalcitrant US President as saying if Congress doesn't approve force, then that absolves the US from further commitments.

Zeroisanumber
Oct 23, 2010


Nap Ghost

Snowdens Secret posted:

Just taking Japan as an example, though, the text isn't that different:

Short of some pretty wild circumstances we would most definitely get involved in a fight between China and Japan. Ukraine is a corrupt backwater that we have zero strategic interest in, Japan is a major East Asian ally. Though you're right in that the treaty doesn't automatically commit us to Japan's defense in the same way that NATO does.

LimburgLimbo
Feb 10, 2008

One day I will be happy
every day


I wish I shared some people here's confidence that the US would step in in the case of a Japan-China conflict, but in reality I don't think it's as sure as people hope in every situation. In an open all-or-nothing war between China and Japan the US would almost certainly step in, but there's a whole gradient of conflict where China throws around its weight without the US doing poo poo to stop them.

This is also keeping in mind that we don't know what the political situation will be in the future; for all the poo poo Obama's been getting from right wing media he's clearly not opposed to the use of force when prudent (see his attempts to be more materially involved in Syria), but that's not guaranteed in the future, and a modern military that could serve as a deterrent to China can't necessarily be built up over the course of a couple years.

Of course you'll have a hard time convincing the Japanese people of this; pacifism to a fault has been beaten into the minds of enough of the Japanese population (they even have a specific word for their form of knee-jerk pacifism; 平和ぼけ, heiwa-boke, literally peace-senility) that actually changing the current dynamic will take time and a lot of political capital.

In the meantime it's looking like they're gearing up to likely subsidize their neighbors who are arrayed against China, or if nothing else offer more advanced weapons to regional partners. At least I'm hoping that they have some greater strategic objectives in mind, as opposed to just shilling for their arms industry.

Courthouse
Jul 23, 2013


iyaayas01 posted:

Again, I don't understand how the Ukrainians thought that it was anything other than a feel good piece of paper that convinced them (stupidly) to give up their nukes. Because that's all it was. If they honestly thought a piece of paper that the Russians agreed to right after the Wall came down was going to be enough to ever prevent them from being under threat of Russian aggression, they're loving idiots. And if we're going to play word games with what meant what, you could make a case that the UK violated paragraph three first through their inducement to get Ukraine to join the EU.

They did so because the signatories of said paper convinced them that's what it meant, that their security was guaranteed. (granted, it was 1994 US telling them that they would make sure 1994 Russia didn't pull some poo poo) Now you could say they should have realized that 20 years down the line there would be new people in all these places and anything not on paper would have been forgotten. But I don't think there is any doubt that in the smoke filled back rooms the Ukrainians were being promised and guaranteed their territorial integrity by the signatory powers in exchange for the nukes.


Now it turns out that it is a worthless piece of paper. And that American promises don't mean poo poo when the it hits the fan. The entire point of a guarantee is that you actually take real and meaningful action to back it up. Or else is is by it's very description not a guarantee of anything.


Point is, the US has said a lot of things over the years. And a lot of countries have based their policies on the understanding that the US would honor it's word. And this lack of meaningful action calls into question every last more or less formal security guarantee underpinning the world diplomatic status quo. It's a big loving deal.





Also, laughing and telling everyone "haha, those dumbshits trusted us" is not terribly good foreign policy.

Courthouse fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Apr 6, 2014

iyaayas01
Feb 19, 2010

Perry'd


Courthouse posted:

They did so because the signatories of said paper convinced them that's what it meant, that their security was guaranteed. (granted, it was 1994 US telling them that they would make sure 1994 Russia didn't pull some poo poo) Now you could say they should have realized that 20 years down the line there would be new people in all these places and anything not on paper would have been forgotten. But I don't think there is any doubt that in the smoke filled back rooms the Ukrainians were being promised and guaranteed their territorial integrity by the signatory powers in exchange for the nukes.


Now it turns out that it is a worthless piece of paper. And that American promises don't mean poo poo when the it hits the fan. The entire point of a guarantee is that you actually take real and meaningful action to back it up. Or else is is by it's very description not a guarantee of anything.


Point is, the US has said a lot of things over the years. And a lot of countries have based their policies on the understanding that the US would honor it's word. And this lack of meaningful action calls into question every last more or less formal security guarantee underpinning the world diplomatic status quo. It's a big loving deal.





Also, laughing and telling everyone "haha, those dumbshits trusted us" is not terribly good foreign policy.

That is one hell of an assumption, saying there "isn't any doubt" that we guaranteed their territorial integrity. I know you won't be able to prove it, so I won't ask you to, but I'll just reiterate that it is one hell of an assumption and I think saying there isn't any doubt is much too strong of a statement, seeing as how the lack of any concrete proof by definition means there is doubt.

As for American promises not meaning poo poo...well yes, if by "promises" you mean "supposed backroom dealings that no one has any proof of and that we can't actually definitively state even occurred," then yes, I guess those promises probably don't count for much. If by "promises" you mean "actual publicly agreed upon statements where we both signed on the dotted line and unambiguously agreed upon a given policy," I think we need to wait until Russian tanks are rolling into Poland or the Chinese land troops on the Senkakus before we state that American promises aren't worth poo poo.

So I think you're hyperventilating a bit when you state that it's a "big loving deal" that we didn't ride to the rescue of Ukraine based on some supposed unwritten unrecorded backroom dealings 20 years ago.

NIGGER DEATH TURBO
Jul 4, 2013

by Lowtax


cool

http://www.popsci.com/article/techn...ts-fda-approval

Snowdens Secret
Dec 29, 2008
Someone got you a obnoxiously racist av.


The idea that we'd committed to defending Ukraine from aggression, even if not explicitly spelled out, is pretty widespread.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/30/obama-must-show-he-ll-use-military-means-to-deter-russia-in-ukraine.html

quote:

When Obama said that the United States would do nothing militarily to protect Ukraine against an attack, he was in effect walking away from the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 signed by Ukraine, Russia, Britain and America. By this paper, Ukraine gave back its nuclear weapons to Russia on a pledge by all parties not to violate Ukraine’s security and sovereignty. To be sure, neither London nor Washington was legally obliged to defend Ukraine if attacked. But it is perfectly obvious that Kiev never would have given up its nukes unless it believed the U.S. would come to its defense in some meaningful fashion.

The Budapest document makes sense historically only as a quid pro quo agreement resting upon American credibility to act. The United States cannot simply walk away from the plain meaning of the Budapest Memorandum and leave Ukraine in the lurch. And how would this complete washing of U.S. hands affect U.S. efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, supposedly a top national priority? Why should any nation forego nukes or give them away like Ukraine, if other nations, and especially the U.S., feel zero responsibility for their defense? It’s not that Washington has to send ground troops or start using its nuclear weapons; it’s just that potential aggressors have to see some potential military cost.

Mind you that's from a guy who sits on the board of the Council of Foreign Relations alongside Madeline Albright, whose signature is on the Budapest Memorandum. Also note Daily Beast running an editorial by a Democrat from the Carter administration isn't exactly 'the right wing media'.

LimburgLimbo posted:

I wish I shared some people here's confidence that the US would step in in the case of a Japan-China conflict, but in reality I don't think it's as sure as people hope in every situation. In an open all-or-nothing war between China and Japan the US would almost certainly step in, but there's a whole gradient of conflict where China throws around its weight without the US doing poo poo to stop them.

This is also keeping in mind that we don't know what the political situation will be in the future; for all the poo poo Obama's been getting from right wing media he's clearly not opposed to the use of force when prudent (see his attempts to be more materially involved in Syria), but that's not guaranteed in the future, and a modern military that could serve as a deterrent to China can't necessarily be built up over the course of a couple years.

Of course you'll have a hard time convincing the Japanese people of this; pacifism to a fault has been beaten into the minds of enough of the Japanese population (they even have a specific word for their form of knee-jerk pacifism; 平和ぼけ, heiwa-boke, literally peace-senility) that actually changing the current dynamic will take time and a lot of political capital.

The thing is, there's dick and squat Ukraine can do in the near-term to reshape its military to deter Russia. Japan, on the other hand, has the luxury of probably (cross fingers) at least a few years before things get unbearably hot. So, now is the time to re-evaluate what foreign commitments and defense requirements will be, not when PLAN ships are blockading your ports. Obama's term isn't far from over, so it's unlikely he'll be in office when poo poo actually goes down. But Japan has to see the possibility of a future US President, five, ten, twenty years from now, governing a poorer USA with an even more shrunken military, sharing Obama's fetish that the foreign policy promises and statements of past administrations, even of his own party, don't tie his hands. Hell, I've posted on this before, but right now we've already shown we're unwilling to enforce explicitly written out treaties; there's not much further down the trust ladder to go from here.

Whether Japan has enough time to build a deterrent or not remains to be seen, but the situation certainly isn't going to get better if they wait, and the deterrent necessary for the smaller steps on that gradient of conflict should be a lot easier to manage.

(There's another Japanese angle where wave on wave of stimulus and Abenomics have landed with an ineffective wet thud on their comatose economy, and unfortunately spending on military buildup has a good track record for short-term resuscitation.)

Richard Bong
Dec 11, 2008



That's pretty awesome. I wonder how bad things get after the 4 hour mark though.

Diarrhea Elemental
Apr 2, 2012

Am I correct in my assumption, you fish-faced enemy of the people?

Richard Bong posted:

That's pretty awesome. I wonder how bad things get after the 4 hour mark though.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say it probably has something to do with the increases in tissue fusing to the sponges. Honestly though this poo poo looks awesome and if you have to use it, the last thing on your mind is going to be wondering if he'll be hitting an OR table in under 4 hours. It'll be more like, "HOLY poo poo THAT'S A FUCKTON OF BLOOD! NON-COMPRESSIBLE HEMORRHAGE! NO TOURNIQUET! FFFFUUUUUU-"

PookBear
Nov 1, 2008


are they using quickclot still or no

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

gleep gloop
Aug 16, 2005

GROSS SHIT

Reverand maynard posted:

are they using quickclot still or no

They got rid of that years ago.

  • Locked thread