Alien Space Bats show Ukrainians living on September 12, 1992 a vision of what their country will look like 30 years later and also how it got there

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
The Senate isn't like the Supreme Court. It shifts alignment too on a scale of four to six years, typically starting the shift a bit ahead of presidential shifts. It's theoretical buffering effect mostly relies on the assumption by the framers that there wouldn't be only two significant political parties.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that if you get two thirds of them on board (this would include both parties), reversing course isn't something that is just going to happen at the flap of a butterfly's wings.
The need to guard against militant Islam is far more urgent in 1992. Most of the troublemakers there are already in power. Russia is still lead by Boris Yeltsin. With foresight I would expect a stronger and earlier conservative middle east hawk movement not a weaker one.
Great, so that's even more reason for American military presence to stick around the region. Not as close as Turkey, but closer than Germany.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Sure, but what I'm saying is that if you get two thirds of them on board (this would include both parties), reversing course isn't something that is just going to happen at the flap of a butterfly's wings.
A treaty isn't a declaration of war or use of force authorization. You need to get one of those past the cloture vote to actually move anything to support Ukraine. It takes 67 Senators to ratify a treaty, but you still need 60 to act on it when it's needed. Lose 8 senators over the decades before Putin gets handsy and the guarantee isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Withdrawing the tripwire doesn't even take that. Congress has no positive input on military deployments. They can end them, but they can't start them or force their continuation.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
A treaty isn't a declaration of war or use of force authorization. You need to get one of those past the cloture vote to actually move anything to support Ukraine. It takes 67 Senators to ratify a treaty, but you still need 60 to act on it when it's needed. Lose 8 senators over the decades before Putin gets handsy and the guarantee isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Withdrawing the tripwire doesn't even take that. Congress has no positive input on military deployments. They can end them, but they can't start them or force their continuation.
I'm sorry that I've been unclear. It is not just about the Senators themselves, or the Senate. If they get on board like that it arguably reflects the level of public support. If public support is that broad, why would it disappear? When Ukraine will be doing its best to be a good partner for the war on terror.

What would the USA gain by abandoning Ukraine?
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
I'm sorry that I've been unclear. It is not just about the Senators themselves, or the Senate. If they get on board like that it arguably reflects the level of public support. If public support is that broad, why would it disappear? When Ukraine will be doing its best to be a good partner for the war on terror.

What would the USA gain by abandoning Ukraine?
The degree to which the senate represents public support is actually quite low. The House is the body that is supposed to reflect public support and it's deliberately not the one ratifying treaties and declaring war.

You're also assuming that public support holds for decades. That's an entire generation's change of voters. And public support for a treaty is not the same thing as public support for war. Talking tough is always more popular than American servicemen coming home in boxes.

The correct question is what the USA risks by not abandoning Ukraine. A generation of insurrection if it has to switch to actual war footing in response to Russian mobilization and the possibility of a nuclear exchange. Because neither most of the voters nor most of the politicians understand that there are costs to abandoning an ally as proven by the withdrawal from Afganistan and Iraq.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
The degree to which the senate represents public support is actually quite low. The House is the body that is supposed to reflect public support and it's deliberately not the one ratifying treaties and declaring war.

You're also assuming that public support holds for decades. That's an entire generation's change of voters. And public support for a treaty is not the same thing as public support for war. Talking tough is always more popular than American servicemen coming home in boxes.

The correct question is what the USA risks by not abandoning Ukraine. A generation of insurrection if it has to switch to actual war footing in response to Russian mobilization and the possibility of a nuclear exchange. Because neither most of the voters nor most of the politicians understand that there are costs to abandoning an ally as proven by the withdrawal from Afganistan and Iraq.
I will admit that 30 years is enough time to a deep and large change in public opinion and that the Senate is not always an excellent barometer of public opinion.

But I do not agree that pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan after decade(s) of trying and failing to convince the people in those countries to put together a real country is evidence that the USA does not understand the cost of abandoning allies. In fact I dispute the extent to which they were allies at all. They were arguably failed attempts to create an ally.

If your position is that there is nothing the USA could possibly do to give Ukraine security guarantees convincing enough to give up on a nuclear deterrent, I think we can agree to disagree. But I think some of your objections are at the level of "but what if the USA withdrew from NATO?" I just don't have a reason to consider that a plausible scenario, but I agree that in principle it could happen.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
But I do not agree that pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan after decade(s) of trying and failing to convince the people in those countries to put together a real country is evidence that the USA does not understand the cost of abandoning allies. In fact I dispute the extent to which they were allies at all. They were arguably failed attempts to create an ally.
Maybe if it were the first time, but it's not. It's just the last iteration in a cavalcade of shame going back to our betrayal of the Republic of Vietnam. They show the pattern of behavior hasn't changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
Maybe if it were the first time, but it's not. It's just the last iteration in a cavalcade of shame going back to our betrayal of the Republic of Vietnam. They show the pattern of behavior hasn't changed.
Just like Korea? and West Germany? and Taiwan?

edit: No, wait, what I should say in response to this is: the Republic of Vietnam was our ally? I thought we just stuck our dicks in the meatgrinder over there because we hated communism.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Just like Korea? and West Germany? and Taiwan?

edit: No, wait, what I should say in response to this is: the Republic of Vietnam was our ally? I thought we just stuck our dicks in the meatgrinder over there because we hated communism.

Worst.USA do not helped France crush commies there,later deposed emperor Bao who keep them in check,murdered president who made the same,gave power to idiots,and then abadonned them to commies.

USA helped commies there - without their intervention Emperor Bao would ruled there.
 

Atarlost

Well-known member
Just like Korea? and West Germany? and Taiwan?

edit: No, wait, what I should say in response to this is: the Republic of Vietnam was our ally? I thought we just stuck our dicks in the meatgrinder over there because we hated communism.
We promised support to the Republic of Vietnam. We proved our word to be mud. We promised support to the Afgans and Iraqis who took power after our interventions. We proved our word to still be mud.

Korea was fought before the hippie movement when both major parties were on the same side of the Cold War.

ATP covered Vietnam. I don't know much about emperor Bao, but we definitely deliberately triggered the coup against Ngo Dinh Diem. The cables between the State Department and the US Embassy in Vietnam aren't classified.

The Republic of China we betrayed deeply by stripping away their Security Council seat in favor of the PRC legitimizing the oppression of their brethren on the continent and financially and technologically supporting the monster that will enslave them all. Our guarantees to Taiwan hang by the thin thread of Nancy Pelosi's financial ties. They will fail if Biden's family are still in power when the crunch comes and any action will at best be delayed by the vote to declare him unfit.

Our guarantees to West Germany were never tested. It's part of western Europe so we might have defended it. Probably would have before the late 1960s. Not so likely after the 1990s even if the Cold War had been ongoing as the hippies were aging into open positions of power by then.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
We promised support to the Republic of Vietnam. We proved our word to be mud. We promised support to the Afgans and Iraqis who took power after our interventions. We proved our word to still be mud.
To be honest, I do not have a very deep understanding of Vietnam, so I may be coloring it with my understanding of the 21st century conflicts. But regarding Iraq: they wanted us out; we got out. Regarding Afghanistan: we tried for 20 years to help them put together a real country. 20 years later it was a mess, insanely corrupt, barely kept afloat by oceans of American money. If we promise support, do we necessarily promise it limitlessly, forever, no matter what malfeasance our alleged allies get up to?

At the end of the day if our word being mud means we will stick with a floundering project for 20 years despite fuck-all being accomplished by our partner, mud ought to be good enough for Ukraine.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
In Ukraine?
Yes, because the pro-Soviet and pro-Russian elements of the society will go ballistic.

Also, I am sure somebody tries to off Putin, and somebody else tries to get him to Ukraine to be their tzar. :D
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Yes, because the pro-Soviet and pro-Russian elements of the society will go ballistic.

Also, I am sure somebody tries to off Putin, and somebody else tries to get him to Ukraine to be their tzar. :D

Are the pro-Soviet and pro-Russian elements of Ukraine's society going to have any plan other than Eurasian integration for avoiding Ukraine's fate? Because, if so, then why exactly did they vote en masse for independence in the previous year?
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Are the pro-Soviet and pro-Russian elements of Ukraine's society going to have any plan other than Eurasian integration for avoiding Ukraine's fate? Because, if so, then why exactly did they vote en masse for independence in the previous year?
They will probably be split between we wuz USSR and wanting to make their own Soviet Republic and For Mother Russia, and wanting to join with the RF.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
Here's the percentage of voters opposed to Ukrainian independence in each Ukrainian oblast in December 1991:

1280px-Ukr_Referendum_1991_No.png
 

ATP

Well-known member
Yes, because the pro-Soviet and pro-Russian elements of the society will go ballistic.

Also, I am sure somebody tries to off Putin, and somebody else tries to get him to Ukraine to be their tzar. :D

I doubt that.
Ukrainian now are fighting becouse they see postsoviet life /no hope and vodka/ in putin state,and what they achieved on Ukraine.
And they simply do not want be part of kgb state.
If they see future in which they could live with hope,they would go for that.
 

ATP

Well-known member
That future would be in an EU that is gradually become more and more Based. :) Le Pen, Meloni, et cetera. :)
Yes.And fuck germany.Ukraine supported them once,but after how they helped Puutin,they should be cured of that.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top