> Reporter Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post stated that Reagan's administration was well aware that the materials sold to Iraq would be used to manufacture chemical weapons for use in the war against Iran. He stated that Iraq's use of chemical weapons was "hardly a secret, with the Iraqi military issuing this warning in February 1984: 'The invaders should know that for every harmful insect, there is an insecticide capable of annihilating it ... and Iraq possesses this annihilation insecticide.'" According to Reagan's foreign policy, every attempt to save Iraq was necessary and legal.[4]
> According to Iraqi documents, assistance in the development of chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories.[6]
> Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that the CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and cyclosarin attacks followed.[263]
Japan in.1935 and Germany in 1939 also seemed none of our business.
Our world is too small and interconnected, and the US is too big and interconnected to the world, for anything to be "not our business", whether we want it or not. Especially a major war in Europe next to our miliray allies' borders.
Regional land grabs are a constant throughout history, including in America’s history. How did we end up with California again?
The fact that there was a war worth fighting 80 years ago doesn’t mean that the US needs to police every border in the world in perpetuity. Your own example proves it. Imperial Japan, alone, wouldn’t have been any of our business had it not attacked us directly. China and Korea could be speaking Japanese today and it would be fine for Americans.
The problem is not even a land grab per se (even though it does cause problems). The problem is that the grabbing party, having succeeded, does not stop, and develops an approach to international affairs that ends up being problematic in the long term. Germany in 1939 did not limit itself to acquiring Alsace and Lorraine, and even to grabbing most of Poland (along with its then-ally USSR), and even to grabbing most of France. Same for any historical empire. (The US in this regard is slightly different, e.g. it did not directly grab Texas, and bought large parts of California. Having grabbed the entire width of the continent, there remained little desire to grab the inhospitable south or north.)
Your logic may work with e.g. Taiwan: I don't think China would go on an expansionist rampage once it grabs Taiwan (or "returns", some would say). Should the US be just okay with that?
I don’t think we have any indication that Russia is more like Nazi Germany than say, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the US stealing territory from the Spanish. There are historical reasons why Russia would want to control Ukraine that don’t imply that they would want to keep expanding into Germany and France.
I think the notion that Russia seeks to take over the world is just Peddled by a bunch of Cold War holdovers who don’t have a job anymore. Whats shocking is that many people who should know better have bought into Dick Cheney-ism.
Germany and France, maybe not. But parts of Poland were also historically controlled by Russia, as was Finland, and the eastern Baltic coast, countries like Lithuania or Estonia. All these countries are NATO members.
I don't think that Russia is trying to take over the world, Genghis Khan-style. But I see a strong tendency in the current Russian regime to restore the area of control and influence that the USSR used to have, and it's not a small and inconsequential alteration of the world map.
Yes, because USA is a founding member of NATO, and, along with other NATO members, is obliged to protect any NATO members under attack with military force.
(As a homework, consider the consequences if the USA refused to follow on with this obligation.)
There are historical reasons why Russia would want to control Ukraine that don’t imply that they would want to keep expanding into Germany and France.
But they do imply they would want to start messing with Poland and the Baltics (and Russian leaders have stated as much openly).
I think the notion that Russia seeks to take over the world ...
No one is saying Russia seeks to "take over the whole world". But it is openly seeking to subjugate a country of 44 million people to whatever extent it can get away with, and has issued recent threats to other countries (see above) it has invaded previously, some multiple times.
Those countries weren’t part of nato when we signed the treaty. Whatever sense the original treaty made, countries have treated nato membership as a way to outsource their defense to the US, and the treaty makes no sense today.
Ukraine is our business as it’s a bulwark against invasion of the rest of Europe who are very much our allies. Not standing against wanna be conquerors gets you more would be conquerors. He has no intention of stopping at Ukraine and has stated he want the old USSR back and more as well as annihilation of NATO. We don’t need another Holocaust which he would be more than happy to set up for Ukrainian citizens.
Correct. International relations exist in anarchy [1].
> British media has attacked Indian companies for doing business with Russia, but no one has a problem with Apple doing the same
Uh, India has been given a free pass on Russia by the West. China makes no effort to contain its frustration at the double standard.
> last time a dictator wen gallivanting around Europe I can recall was when Putin invaded Georgia
If you recall, the crux of the debate was whether Georgia is geopolitically Europe. It seems we concluded, once and for all, with no uncertainty, “maybe.” (So we got Ukraine!)
(Side note: “Please don't comment about the voting on comments” [2].)
How? The Allies defeated Hitler and more or less said no more wars of conquest, especially in Europe. That precedent was cemented with MAD and the bipolar world order.
Putin is relitigating that line. If anyone has a say in that (and the firepower to back it) it’s the Allies. (Or at least the ones that survived.)
Hitler was a unique threat that doesn’t justify an overarching global military regime that interferes with regional conflicts. Nazi Germany was used as precedent to justify countless mistaken wars in the second half of the 20th century, from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq. The US has spent trillions of dollars since 1945 intervening in border conflicts that weren’t in America’s interest.
> US has spent trillions of dollars since 1945 intervening in border conflicts that weren’t in America’s interest
I agree. Which is where Europe being different comes into play. Europe has a history of multilateral border agreements with external guarantors, from the Treaty of Westphalia (the actual one, concerning the Holy Roman Empire, not the meme) and Congress of Vienna to the Paris Peace Treaties and Maastricht/Lisbon. It’s also a clear American economic and security interest.
I’m not arguing for or against any specific action here. Just that if there is a group with a precedent of checking imperial dictators in Europe, it’s the Allies.
If Europe wants to check Russian expansion, they can do that. But it’s none of America's business. I don’t think it actually affects someone in Ohio if the French were speaking Russian tomorrow.
>But it’s none of America's business. I don’t think it actually affects someone in Ohio if the French were speaking Russian tomorrow.
It does affect someone in Ohio if any single government manages to get control the entire European Plain from France to Russia plus the current territory of Russia because a country with those natural resources and that population stands a decent chance of becoming stronger than the US -- maybe not right away, but after a few decades -- so it is good realist politics for the US to try to prevent that from happening. (Americans are significantly more secure than they would be if the US had only the second strongest economy and the second strongest military in the world.)
The reason the US shouldn't spend much money helping Ukraine is that the current Russian government does not want to expand that far (much too risky for its tastes) and that it almost certainly would fail if it tried. (It also should have stayed out of Iraq and Afghanistan.)
> If Europe wants to check Russian expansion, they can do that. But it’s none of America's business.
Neither Russia nor China seems willing play by the rules of a rules-based international order. OK, fine, that puts us into power politics — which means we get to make it our business, for reasons we deem sufficient. We're not bad guys for preferring, and exerting our muscle to seek, a Eurasian continent that's not dominated by China and Russia (and Iran), whose governments think it's OK to imprison or defenestrate dissenters or to blow up insurrectionists' planes in mid-air. Does that touch off Russian- and Chinese cries of "unfair" American hegemony-seeking? Tough shit — FAFO.
It’s as much our business as Hitler was. We didn’t go into WWII to stop the Holocaust, we went into stop Hitler.
> don’t think it actually affects someone in Ohio if the French were speaking Russian tomorrow
Ohio is an industrial and agricultural export powerhouse. 17% of its exports go to Europe, $1.1bn of which to France [1]. Even if we reduce this to a pockebook issue, Paris falling into Moscow's sphere of infuence makes Ohio poorer.
More pointedly: we made a promise to Europe, through NATO and various agreements, to protect it from Moscow. If Putin's in Paris, we're treaty bound to fight him. (And if Ukraine is a borderline issue in America, you know Western Europe won't be. Dithering on Ukraine increases the chances we get sucked into a massive foreign war.)
> It’s as much our business as Hitler was. We didn’t go into WWII to stop the Holocaust, we went into stop Hitler.
Hitler plausibly threatened American security. I don’t see any indication that Russia could do the same. Realistically, Russia can’t even take over Western Europe.
Look, we know where playing world police—treating every border aggression like it’s literally Hitler—takes us. For the last 80 years we have pissed away trillions of dollars and countless American lives defending borders few Americans could find on a map. It’s not worth it, and most of the world (except Europe who gets to free-ride on the security we provide) hates us for it.
> Ohio is an industrial and agricultural export powerhouse. 17% of its exports go to Europe, $1.1bn of which to France
If we stopped dicking around being the world police, why would a Russian-controlled France stop buying stuff from Ohio?
> Hitler plausibly threatened American security. I don’t see any indication that Russia could do the same
How? Hitler wasn’t in Cuba [1]. Putin challenges America directly in a way Hitler never did prior to our entering the war.
> It’s not worth it
I agree in general. Not in Europe, and not with Putin.
> why would a Russian-controlled France stop buying stuff from Ohio?
Same reason Europe and our allies in the Middle East preferentially buy from us. Commercial ties follow spheres of influence. It’s not some random coincidence our trading partners in the Middle East, Africa, Caucasus and Southeast Asia track our military alliances.
> NATO—it’s obsolete
You’d prefer another European free for all? Because again, when that happens, it’s obvious we’d get involved. You may prefer we not. But we would, and then you’ve got a major foreign war on your hands.
