Diplomatic Solutions to Overt Aggression

Before I even get into examining ISIS, I totally overlooked another major issue in my last post, the conflict in Ukraine.  My first note about that is: has no one in the media read Tom Clancy's last book, Command Authority?  He predicted the initial conflict with a startling level of detail, as is his pattern.  How does that get no mention anywhere?


But our response has been pretty weak.  There are all sorts of commentators debating about whether we have a responsibility to get involved, since Ukraine is not technically a member of NATO.  There was very little press about The Budapest Memorandums, where both Russia and the US guaranteed to respect the borders of Ukraine, and never threaten them with force or economic coercion, in return for Ukraine giving up its stockpile of USSR's nuclear weapons. 


If our goal is to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we have to honor our commitments, and support those who give up their nuclear weapons or development programs.  No country will ever agree to give up their nuclear weapons after what has happened in Ukraine over the last six months.  Not only did Russia invade Crimea, and not Ukraine itself, but the US has done nothing to stop them.  I am not saying we should go launch ICBMs at Moscow tomorrow, but if we are unwilling to use nuclear weapons first in any circumstance, why have them?  Some would argue that it is the threat of retaliation that prevents a foreign nuclear attack.  But under that logic, we would stand by idle while a nuclear armed foe takes over the whole world, as long as they only use their conventional forces.  Not only have we not threatened to use our nukes to defend Ukraine from foreign invasion, but we haven't even threatened to use our own conventional forces to defend them either.  And they even killed American citizens with the downing of Malaysian Flight 17, which is an act of war that traditionally would have been legitimate grounds for a military response.


But similar to the endless situation in Israel, since we don't "recognize" the rebels, we can't declare war on them.  What does "recognize" even really mean?  Not acknowledging something, doesn't affect whether it exists.  (See atheists on God)  There is a similar problem in a much more extreme context in Syria and Iraq, but that is for my next post.  In the mean time, whether or not the US recognizes them, there are a bunch of Russian soldiers in Eastern Ukraine.  And despite Putin's claims otherwise, they are taking control of the area, whether we like it or not.


Not only have we not taken any action to stop them, but we haven't even accused Russia of the invasion that they are publicly denying is taking place.  So if we don't "recognize" it, and they deny it, does that mean it is not "really" happening?  And people aren't "really" being killed.  Our method of diplomacy, where in we don't even talk about the problems, is the worst possible approach.  And where does the UN fit into all of this?  Aren't they supposed to mediate these disputes, and can Russia's veto on the Security Council be used to prevent any response from them?  If so, what is the point of that organization?  Once again, victory is the only way to diffuse the numerous developing hotspots around the globe.