> Are you suggesting someone should have pre-emptively invaded Russia after Crimea, thus instead of worrying about a possible full-blown invasion, get it out of the way and just guarantee one?
That’s quite a leap of logic there. I think it’s enough to recognize that many believed a full invasion wasn’t in the cards.
> Because as far as I know, the right people expected something to happen — there is just the issue of “well, what do you do about it?”
The main issue here is that we let down our guard against hostile leaders and nations. And there still seems to be a a large portion of Western civilization in denial.
But a deadman-switch NATO membership? Prop up their defensive capabilities? Put pressure on Germany with regards to gas and overly cozy relationships with Russia?
Hindsight is easy and I’m sure others have better ideas; that’s besides the point.
Or the discussion about how because we expect Russia to do something, we actually are not sure about NATO anymore because we don't want to be obligated to enter in a war?
No but your point is that it is a weakness of the democratic process when clearly the democratic process created both outcomes.
You also made the point that a weakness of democracy is that it follows the general sentiment, but clearly the US govt didn't give a damn that a lot of people didn't care about Russia or weren't even aware of the things the US govt was doing -- like trying to put US missile installations in other sovereign nations. We tried and tried... for a very long time.
If Germany had an authoritarian leader, it doesn't mean that they would have taken Russia any more seriously. I've heard that Angela Merkel supported the shutdown of nuclear reactors after Fukishima because she wanted to shore up her popularity. An authoritarian leader could have done exactly the same thing -- who doesn't want to look good?
There is a limit to the amount of pressure that the US can put on a country. Crimea already happened and if that wasn't good enough, what was?
Even after Russia did invade Ukraine, the US had to pressure Europe to really look into alternative energy sources (especially after the shutdown of those nuclear reactors) even through winter was coming up and the writing was on the wall. In the end, the US ended up becoming the world's biggest (or 2nd biggest -- don't recall) natural gas exporter this winter just to shore up Europe's heating supplies (which also meant my natural gas bill went up like 3x!).
Ultimately, I don't think democracy can be blamed. We can blame bad leadership in some cases, but that is a problem endemic to every political system.
> You also made the point that a weakness of democracy is that it follows the general sentiment,
I never implied this is a weakness.
Instead…
> but clearly the US govt didn't give a damn that a lot of people didn't care about Russia or weren't even aware of the things the US govt was doing -- like trying to put US missile installations in other sovereign nations. We tried and tried... for a very long time.
I’m saying this is a clear failure of leadership.
> I've heard that Angela Merkel supported the shutdown of nuclear reactors after Fukishima because she wanted to shore up her popularity. An authoritarian leader could have done exactly the same thing -- who doesn't want to look good?
Then that’s a clear failure of leadership. In this instance, instead of persuading the public she let the public persuade her.
Still, if Merkel genuinely believed that Russia was a threat, I doubt she would have done this. Of course, we now believe German intelligence was compromised by Russia.
> Ultimately, I don't think democracy can be blamed. We can blame bad leadership in some cases, but that is a problem endemic to every political system.
We enabled our enemies because leadership believed that the market would liberalize our enemies. We let our guard down.
While late, it’s now leaderships’ job to persuade the public of the threats at hand.
That’s quite a leap of logic there. I think it’s enough to recognize that many believed a full invasion wasn’t in the cards.
> Because as far as I know, the right people expected something to happen — there is just the issue of “well, what do you do about it?”
The main issue here is that we let down our guard against hostile leaders and nations. And there still seems to be a a large portion of Western civilization in denial.
But a deadman-switch NATO membership? Prop up their defensive capabilities? Put pressure on Germany with regards to gas and overly cozy relationships with Russia?
Hindsight is easy and I’m sure others have better ideas; that’s besides the point.