US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

This isn't meant to be snarky, but can you point to a single credible movement within the US or Europe with any serious backing that wanted to push east into Russia? We obviously know Russia wants to reunite the Soviet Union and has taken the first giant steps towards that goal.

The military coalition dominated by the two countries that invaded deep into their territory in 1800 and 1940 gobbled up all the buffer states right up to the Russian doorstep. That coalition also invited Russia's former largest trading partners into an economic common market, and is financing energy companies that directly compete in the export market on which depends Russia's national security.

Western Europe has been at least as lethally provocative towards Russia as the US was towards Japan before WW2. Let's hope the analogy fails to play out.

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Smart on them.


(Also, that sub looks badazz compared to the giant but silent dildos we make)

I think it looks like a cross between the space shuttle and the bull that sits outside the NYSE.

[St. Clown]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Expanded NATO into the Baltics, Poland and Balkans right up against the Russian Boulder. Why?

Because the Belarissian Rock just wasn't big enough?

We expanded NATO with the hopes of keeping Russia from once again becoming an empire. They have a history of flexing their influence over that area by might-makes-bear. We had existing NATO allies uncomfortable with the idea of Russia encroaching upon their own boulders and rocks once they expected the Russians to rebuild their military after the Soviet collapse. So they recruited buffer states, and that's what we've done, rightly or wrongly.

[St. Clown]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

I think it looks like a cross between the space shuttle and the bull that sits outside the NYSE.

I want to know why the hatch tower is so long. What's the purpose to that? It seems like a shorter tower would be cheaper to build and easier for concealment.

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Because the Belarissian Rock just wasn't big enough?

We expanded NATO with the hopes of keeping Russia from once again becoming an empire. They have a history of flexing their influence over that area by might-makes-bear. We had existing NATO allies uncomfortable with the idea of Russia encroaching upon their own boulders and rocks once they expected the Russians to rebuild their military after the Soviet collapse. So they recruited buffer states, and that's what we've done, rightly or wrongly.

The Plan was for the buffer states to protect both sides. The Motherland has at least as much to fear from The Fatherland as vice versa. The best thing that could happen now is a mutual withdrawal from those states by both sides.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Because the Belarissian Rock just wasn't big enough?

We expanded NATO with the hopes of keeping Russia from once again becoming an empire. They have a history of flexing their influence over that area by might-makes-bear. We had existing NATO allies uncomfortable with the idea of Russia encroaching upon their own boulders and rocks once they expected the Russians to rebuild their military after the Soviet collapse. So they recruited buffer states, and that's what we've done, rightly or wrongly.

This is more in line with my understanding. It's more of a defense than an offense.

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

This is more in line with my understanding. It's more of a defense than an offense.

A couple things on this. First, client states are always spun as "defensive" in local propaganda, while the opponent's are "offensive." That's just how you play the game of Me Good, You Meh, You Over There Really Bad.

Another is that Poland was basically created to be an early warning system for tanks running in either direction. Both the Germans and the Russians have tenuous claims on that land (depending on whether you like your history as Greater Lithuania or Pan-Slavic), and the safest solution was to plop down a patsy state that couldn't threaten either power and couldn't defend itself (it's Kansas -- armor and mechanized infantry heaven). In the US it had the added advantage of making an electoral demographic happy.

NATO broke all the rules when the USSR collapsed, and that was very bad macro-geopolitics that someday might be seen as on par with the Treaty of Versailles as a boneheaded play. Putin can easily sell the optic of a ravenous west threatening at the Russians' folkloric western gate because, well, we kinda are. Now Putin being an unreconstructed KGB-nationalist, he probably does have territorial ambitions, but, again like Versailles, this allows him to mask his aggressive intentions using the language of grievances which is not a stretch.

[joecct]

A couple things on this. First, client states are always spun as "defensive" in local propaganda, while the opponent's are "offensive." That's just how you play the game of Me Good, You Meh, You Over There Really Bad.

Another is that Poland was basically created to be an early warning system for tanks running in either direction. Both the Germans and the Russians have tenuous claims on that land (depending on whether you like your history as Greater Lithuania or Pan-Slavic), and the safest solution was to plop down a patsy state that couldn't threaten either power and couldn't defend itself (it's Kansas -- armor and mechanized infantry heaven). In the US it had the added advantage of making an electoral demographic happy.

NATO broke all the rules when the USSR collapsed, and that was very bad macro-geopolitics that someday might be seen as on par with the Treaty of Versailles as a boneheaded play. Putin can easily sell the optic of a ravenous west threatening at the Russians' folkloric western gate because, well, we kinda are. Now Putin being an unreconstructed KGB-nationalist, he probably does have territorial ambitions, but, again like Versailles, this allows him to mask his aggressive intentions using the language of grievances which is not a stretch.

And don't forget that after WW2, Poland was shifted a few hundred kilometers west to give the Soviet Union more of a buffer against the Huns.

Poland has no defensible borders. Any mountains have big passes.

If they had joined with the Ukraine back in the 20s....

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

And don't forget that after WW2, Poland was shifted a few hundred kilometers west to give the Soviet Union more of a buffer against the Huns.

Poland has no defensible borders. Any mountains have big passes.

If they had joined with the Ukraine back in the 20s....

I have a friend who is a Polish neocon diplomat on the Hill who would actually challenge you to a duel for suggesting that. They really, really do not like the Ukrainians. Or the Ruthenians, aka the fun-loving people of Belarus.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

A couple things on this. First, client states are always spun as "defensive" in local propaganda, while the opponent's are "offensive." That's just how you play the game of Me Good, You Meh, You Over There Really Bad.

Another is that Poland was basically created to be an early warning system for tanks running in either direction. Both the Germans and the Russians have tenuous claims on that land (depending on whether you like your history as Greater Lithuania or Pan-Slavic), and the safest solution was to plop down a patsy state that couldn't threaten either power and couldn't defend itself (it's Kansas -- armor and mechanized infantry heaven). In the US it had the added advantage of making an electoral demographic happy.

NATO broke all the rules when the USSR collapsed, and that was very bad macro-geopolitics that someday might be seen as on par with the Treaty of Versailles as a boneheaded play. Putin can easily sell the optic of a ravenous west threatening at the Russians' folkloric western gate because, well, we kinda are. Now Putin being an unreconstructed KGB-nationalist, he probably does have territorial ambitions, but, again like Versailles, this allows him to mask his aggressive intentions using the language of grievances which is not a stretch.

Are there any good longform articles or even books written on this? Specifically the reasoning in the second and third paragraph?

I'd like to read more about this.

[joecct]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

IIRC Poland was eradicated from Europe at the end of the 18th Century. What was Poland went to Russia, Prussia, and Austria via treaty (140 some odd years later the Czechs should have seen the handwriting on the wall).

Poland's problem was - well, Poland. It's legislature had a one man veto. Any member could kibosh the whole thing. And geography. It's flat. No defensible borders. No natural boundaries. Powerful and hungry neighbors. As Kep said, a tank commander's dream.

Versailles (1919) restored Poland, screwed up the Balkans, created Czechslovakia, and set the fuse for WW2.

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

IIRC Poland was eradicated from Europe at the end of the 18th Century.

"She wept, but she kept taking."

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Versailles (1919) restored Poland, screwed up the Balkans, created Czechslovakia, and set the fuse for WW2.

Don't forget Trianon.

If you ever have a free day on your hands, grab a bottle of Pálinka, google "Trianon" on YouTube, and get (un)comfortable.

[joecct]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Pat giving advice to PEtD on Syria.

https://www.creators.com/read/pat-bu...=subscriptions

[Kepler]

Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Pat giving advice to PEtD on Syria.

https://www.creators.com/read/pat-bu...=subscriptions

Pat is often wrong, and when wrong is wildly wrong.

But save for some partisan filigree and his de rigeur sad offhands to salvage Nixon's (read: his) dignity, I can't argue with anything in that piece.

Pat is far from the Jesuit saint he cross-dresses as, but we could do worse than follow his prescription to Stay The F-ck Out of foreign entanglements unless a vital US interest is on the line. And Halliburton's share price is not a vital US interest.