The Russians Are Coming: Lithuania's Operation Lightning Strike

[TGS]

They took our lunch in Georgia, which made them bolder in Ukraine

Thanks for supporting my argument on why appeasing Russia is a bad idea.

They were bolder in the Ukraine, and now they're setting their sights elsewhere.

Latvia?

Then who?

How far are we going to let it go? We could just stop them before the snowball gets too big...but no. Let it get to the point where the only course of action is world war, because they'll dominate most of Europe and more. That's what you're proposing.

[5pins]

Deterrence works when you have leaders that know how to use it, we don’t have that.

[MDS]

Let it get to the point where the only course of action is world war, because they'll dominate most of Europe and more. That's what you're proposing.

Interesting. I propose that our core disagreement is about whether world war is inevitable. If I believed it was avoidable in the long run, I'd side with you on this. But I believe world war is unavoidable, for that matter I believe nuclear war is unavoidable. So I side with setting things up to minimize our suffering.

Admittedly, we're already so entrenched everywhere that it's going to take time and effort to untangle ourselves. Europe's going to have to rearm, etc. But past stupidity can't justify continuing a failed policy of policing the world.

Have I mentioned that none of this matters? Regardless of what I think, we are going to find out what's at the end of our interventionist path. I hope I am wrong, in which case, everyone is invited to an epic party at my house to use up my stash of whisky, tobacco, and ammo.

[TGS]

Interesting. I propose that our core disagreement is about whether world war is inevitable. If I believed it was avoidable in the long run, I'd side with you on this. But I believe world war is unavoidable, for that matter I believe nuclear war is unavoidable. So I side with setting things up to minimize our suffering.

See, I view the matter as the best way to minimize suffering is to just take a bite out of a shit sandwich sooner and nip it in the bud. Trying to delay the inevitable will only make it worse in the end.

None of this would even be happening if Russia didn't stop Georgia and other former satellite states from joining NATO. Medvedev said so himself, and implied that if the West had successfully intervened in such that Russia would not be on the roll that it is. How can you argue with Russian leaders about their own goals and how they plan to achieve them?

Admittedly, we're already so entrenched everywhere that it's going to take time and effort to untangle ourselves. Europe's going to have to rearm, etc. But past stupidity can't justify continuing a failed policy of policing the world.

Define failed, Mario. We're in a remarkably peaceful era of human history, as pointed out not only in the recently posted interactive video you donated to, but also on TED by Steven Plinker.

[MDS]

See, I view the matter as the best way to minimize suffering is to just take a bite out of a shit sandwich sooner and nip it in the bud. Trying to delay the inevitable will only make it worse in the end.

Worse for who? We delayed the inevitable in every overseas intervention through WW2. If we'd have intervened sooner, would that have minimized suffering? I'm not so sure, and it certainly wouldn't have left us so strong after the wars.

None of this would even be happening if Russia didn't stop Georgia and other former satellite states from joining NATO.

None of the drama and violence through history would even have happened if people and nations were enlightened zen masters motivated by brotherly love. Instead, we are mostly selfish bastards motivated by desire. Russia pursued its interests, which are often opposed to our interests, when it maneuvered to keep its periphery out of NATO. Wouldn't you have done the same? In fact, didn't NATO promise, at its founding, to stay out of Russia's periphery? Doesn't it seem prudent to allow such a major power some buffer space, to respect its sphere of influence as we would like them to allow and respect ours?

Define failed, Mario. We're in a remarkably peaceful era of human history[...]

Defined as failing to achieve stated goals. Peace isn't always good, especially when it amounts to clamping down on a high-pressure situation, forcing the pressure to keep building. Final outcome could be much worse in that case. Now, if we disagree on whether our wars after ww2 tend to achieve stated goals, that's a whole other thread. I propose we call it whiskey, tobacco, and ammo.

[TGS]

Doesn't it seem prudent to allow such a major power some buffer space, to respect its sphere of influence as we would like them to allow and respect ours?

Yeah, oppressive regimes seeking lebensraum is totally cool.

On a more productive note, do you think there's a point where Russia will find a happy medium? Do you think they'll stop after oppressing their neighbors and repeating a few million more democides like they did last century?

[MDS]

Yeah, oppressive regimes seeking lebensraum is totally cool.

"We are men of action. Lies do not become us." Does anyone seriously believe that we fight wars to liberate oppressed peoples?

On a more productive note, do you think there's a point where Russia will find a happy medium? Do you think they'll stop after oppressing their neighbors and repeating a few million more democides like they did last century?

Yeah, I do. Because oppression doesn't scale, especially with the illuminating technology of today and tomorrow.

This confidence in American superiority - moral, social, and martial - is unwarranted, IMO. Just because we only assassinate a few of our citizens with whom we disagree the most, doesn't make us angels of light.

[TGS]

"We are men of action. Lies do not become us." Does anyone seriously believe that we fight wars to liberate oppressed peoples?

Totally not my point.

This confidence in American superiority - moral, social, and martial - is unwarranted, IMO. Just because we only assassinate a few of our citizens with whom we disagree the most, doesn't make us angels of light.

Not really my point.

[MDS]

Totally not my point.



Not really my point.

Fair enough. Maybe you could clarify, then? Because I just reread our posts, and it sounds like you favor early intervention in the hopes that we can deter major world powers from increasing their sphere of influence and oppression. Whereas I hold no such hope, nor do I judge their oppression so harshly, so I favor late intervention to keep adversaries exhausted and maintain our relative superiority at minimum cost to ourselves.

Seems like a simple enough difference of opinion, no?

[TGS]

Fair enough. Maybe you could clarify, then? Because I just reread our posts, and it sounds like you favor early intervention in the hopes that we can deter major world powers from increasing their sphere of influence and oppression.

Yes, but I never meant to imply that all of our military actions (combative or MOOTW) are for completely altruistic reasons with no political or economic end-states.