General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI think that some people maybe do not understand the Cold War.
The situation in Ukraine is horrible and ridiculous. Putin is a disgusting monster. We should be doing everything we can to support Ukraine to resist Russian aggression.
I have seen a lot of posts however, calling for direct military intervention from NATO or the US, or some other entity to fight Russians on the ground.
That sentiment, though understandable given what I said above, seems to me, to show a lack of understanding about MAD and the Cold War and just how really close the world has come to nuclear annihilation over the last several decades. Nuclear catastrophe was avoided several times through diplomacy, calmer heads prevailing, and sometimes simply, the decision of one or two people that stepped back from war.
Leaders of the Soviet Union and the US tended to think in longer terms, and more strategically than Putin seems to be doing today. We need to understand that he may not have the temperament of a Gorbachev or the savvy of a Brezhnev. He has been the absolute dictator of Russia for decades. We do not know what he will do to hold on to power.
I am not saying that we should sit back and do nothing, but many people seem to think that direct military intervention would not spark a much greater war.
I am just wondering what evidence they are going on for this mentality?
onecaliberal
(32,483 posts)And dont want them slaughtered while we look on. /end
orwell
(7,753 posts)...for close to 30 years. He has been executing the plan right in front of our eyes.
Other than that I agree with you regarding the CW and MAD.
A direct confrontation with Russia right now would likely escalate rapidly into a global nuclear exchange. Putin is planning on this reality to take Ukraine without a direct NATO response.
Unfortunately we did the same thing in Iraq, without the whole nuclear sabre rattling part.
EX500rider
(10,520 posts)Actually I consider it the exact opposite,
US
invading a country, removing a dictator, installing a democratic government and pulling out
Vs
Russia
invading a democratic country, installing a dictator and never leaving
onecaliberal
(32,483 posts)orwell
(7,753 posts)...he was our dictator...until he wasn't.
He great sin was saying he would accept Euros for Iraqi oil, breaking the dollar for oil stranglehold originally architected by Nixon and the Saudis. By the way this deal with the devil to take the US off the gold standard led to the dominance of the OPEC cartel, the inevitable cartel pricing for oil, all to the benefit of Texas US producers who would have never gotten away with such a scheme due to anti-trust in the US. This began the unending rise in the price of oil, the most fundamental commodity on earth in an industrial society.
What we got out of this arrangement was the politically powerful oil interests got a windfall (payoff for their unending support of the Republican Party), and the US dollar had to be used for oil purchases from the Saudis. This allowed us to massively explode the US deficits without a run on the currency. As soon as Saddam threatened this "New World Order" we had to take him out.
And it was effective. Everyone got the real message and the dollar hegemon stayed in place for decades.
BTW, one of the main reasons for the belligerence towards the West is that very dollar hegemon to this day. Whether or not you support it, with a classical economic model (which I don't agree with), it allows the hegemon's citizens to live far beyond their means of production. We can effectively export inflation.
While we like to think that our aims are noble, most of the time they come down to money and power. The myths are there to get the population behind killing or being killed.
All that being said, in general less people would be killed with the US as hegemon. China would probably be second, Russia a distant third. Of all the economic political arrangements on the planet the EU is probably the most fair and the least deadly. This is due in no small part to the fact that 2 grotesque world wars have been fought on their soil in the last century.
In my view it is consistent to call Putin at this point Hitler Jr. He may in the end prove to be far more maniacal and destructive. (Hitler didn't have nukes.) But if I am also going to be consistent, both Iraq and Afghanistan were completely unnecessary and to America's great shame. Both adventures in brutality showed a stunning lack of imagination.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Gore1FL
(21,030 posts)Ukraine is a horrible disaster for the Russians. There is no useful strategic reason I can think of to change the dynamic.
From a humanitarian standpoint, I can see arguments, but it's unclear how NATO involvement helps rather than exacerbates the humanitarian crisis.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)Not saying here on DU, but I've heard/read/seen comments that appear to suggest the Cold War was bloodless, somehow not all that bad. In real life, and across the web. Comments read/heard regarding the war in Ukraine, and the world's response.
Remarks that say, not real (Global) war happening, just Cold War, like last time.
Which demonstrates a clear lack of understanding and appreciation for the vast amount of destruction the Cold War brought. Millions died, in the double digits.
I think, don't know - merely think, that Putin is capable of anything. Anything.
I also think the world (a lot of it) is responding accordingly, with that in mind. It's a delicate balance.
It's also not missing out on the chance to possibly bring Putin down for good and all.
I don't disagree with that course of action.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)Mostly not directly, but through proxies. They did shoot down our planes from time to time, and vice versa. The risk of escalation was always there. But we did what we had to do.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)- using more than just money. So many bad things happened. Atrocities, etc.
marie999
(3,334 posts)lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Do you think we have the right to take down a spy plane that is in our airspace?
Caliman73
(11,693 posts)It was only a "Cold" War in the sense that The United States and USSR did not get into a hot shooting war with each other, escalating to nuclear war.
Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Laos, Cambodia, USSR v. Afghanistan, the various wars in Central America, etc... were all part of the Cold War. They were fought by proxies. or by the USA and USSR against others.
It is a delicate balance. We have an unhinged psychopath with nuclear weapons pushing the world to the brink.
Solly Mack
(90,740 posts)without an appreciation for what is at stake right now.
I am also having to temper my responses to those who think the Cold War was a bunch of spies doing their thing and not much more.
Caliman73
(11,693 posts)The further we get away from "historical events" the less we tend to regard them. Another problem is that we are abysmal about teaching history, especially world history, to our students.
People in the United States have a ridiculously laughable view about the histories of the people we share the planet with.
I remember the line in the Animal House movie where Belushi's character says, "Did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? That movie was made in 1978, the middle of the Cold War about 35 years after WWII. I know it was a comedy and satirical, but the point is that it was making fun of the lack of knowledge of our University Students about world history, even then.
There is a saying, "History does not repeat, but it rhymes", which I do like better than the original "Those who do not learn from history ..." There are always people who want power. Their own history and history of their nation/region/etc.. shape how they see that pursuit of power. When we do not understand, or if we misinterpret history we tend to make mistakes that can have serious global consequences.
I do think that Joe Biden is a student of history, and that he has certain advantages in his actions that President Obama may not have had. I think that we are in decent hands with him at the helm. Putin, unfortunately, is a wild card.
Calculating
(2,954 posts)He's not gonna use nukes and end the world over Ukraine. He's just a bully trying to intimidate people into staying out of it.
lagomorph777
(30,613 posts)BlackSkimmer
(51,308 posts)Well, Ive now seen it all here.