What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

St. Clown said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is more in line with my understanding. It's more of a defense than an offense.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

dxmnkd316 said:
This is more in line with my understanding. It's more of a defense than an offense.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

joecct said:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Kepler said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

joecct said:
Versailles (1919) restored Poland, screwed up the Balkans, created Czechslovakia, and set the fuse for WW2.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

joecct said:
Pat giving advice to PEtD on Syria.

https://www.creators.com/read/pat-b...y&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=subscriptions
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

More from Ankara. If you were hoping it was something non-political like a bad break up, well, nah.

The Russian ambassador to Turkey has been seriously wounded in a shooting at an art gallery in Ankara, Turkey. The gunman reportedly announced “we will make you pay for Aleppo” before attacking the ambassador. CNN Turkey is reporting that the ambassador, Andrey Karlov, is in critical condition and that two others were wounded.

Relationships between the government of Turkey’s autocratic leader, Recep Erdoğan, and that of Russia’s autocratic leader, Vladmir Putin, were already tense. Turkey has provided support to rebels against the autocratic leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, while Russia has been Assad’s strongest supporter. With the direct help of Russian air and ground forces, Assad’s government has been able to push back rebels that had captured significant portions of the country and seemed poised to topple the Assad government.

Rebel groups supported by Turkey captured the town of Dabiq from ISIS in October. Members of some of the same groups were among those shelled and bombed by Syrian forces in eastern Aleppo. Turkey’s support of rebel forces while Russia has been actively working with Assad has brought their militaries into near conflict several times.
Click to expand...

Well, at least they have a history of peaceful relations...
 
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

Not having American forces in Syria looks like a godsend right now.

I had no idea Turkey's longest land border is with Syria. I would have guessed Iraq, which is actually third, Iran's being a bit longer. Georgia, Armenia, Greece and Bulgaria round it out, all of them of non-trivial length.
 
Last edited:
Re: US Foreign Policy: The Wogs Begin at Calais

burd said:
It would be very easy for Turkey to be the flashpoint for some seriously bad shat.
Click to expand...

Lovely. Just in time for Donald Trump to be inaugurated. WWIII is no longer an infinitesimal chance in the next four years. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top