“In great empires the people who live in the capital, and in the provinces remote from the scene of action, feel, many of them, scarce any inconveniency from the war; but enjoy, at their ease, the amusement of reading in the newspapers the exploits of their own fleets and armies. To them this amusement compensates the small difference between the taxes which they pay on account of the war, and those which they had been accustomed to pay in time of peace. They are commonly dissatisfied with the return of peace, which puts an end to their amusement, and to a thousand visionary hopes of conquest and national glory from a longer continuance of the war.”
There is a huge difference between say a movie, a game and a real conflict. I usually only read books but for the last few months I was almost compulsively following news about what happens in Belarus and Ukraine (I am Pole BTW, my countryman don't like Russia very much).
I can say, taking as an example the Polish-Belarusian border "conflict", that it makes a real difference if something happens near your country and when, in the worst case, you may even be involved...
But you may be right for US folks. They can watch the "show" from the safe distance, and it will probably (even in case of war) be a news for a 3 or 4 weeks just as it was with pull out from Afghanistan.
Ukraine, on the other hand, claims Americans are safer in Kyiv than LA[1]. I don't know who is correct, but it does seem propaganda is flying in from multiple directions and it's hard to ascertain the ground truth. Given all the previous claims that turned out to be lies (WMD in Iraq, No bombing of the Syrian dam, etc.), it's hard to provide benefit of doubt.
Ukraine may be right... today. But tomorrow may be very different.
And Ukraine may have their own bias here. They may figure that if there are a bunch of Americans in Ukraine, that may increase Putin's hesitation, or give the US more incentive to intervene. They're an asset that Ukraine may want to keep.
This is a very nice assessment. I interpreted it as preventing foreign capital flight and trying to calm public sentiment (eg preventing empty store shelves) But the “human shield” hypothesis is even more plausible!
Ironically there it was the other way around. While things were deteriorating very rapidly, the administration insisted it was very orderly and orchestrated pullout, among other misstatements such as ‘no Americans who want to leave we’re left behind.”
Russia and China are very capable masters of misinformation -of that there is little doubt. On the other hand the career government officials and others in government have had their fill with misinformation about Covid origins, "Russia-gate", Syrian dam bombings, etc.
The Bush government at the time pressured that Ukraine and Georgia should be ascension candidates. It was an aggressive move by Nato towards Russia, I don't think that can be denied. Does that justify Russias response? Of course not, but to say this is one-sided aggression doesn't fit reality in my opinion. Biden does mirror the politics of Bush right now. I also think there is a lot of thirst for any conflict now that Afghanistan was lost.
Giving the benefit of the doubt is useful, but you should also always check the claims.
I wonder whether Afghanistan experience encourage embassies to voice this concerns.
Also thinking whether this has impact on geo-politics. Does it encourage war as hints that USA gave up or the opposite, you are preparing for the worst and ready to push back.
Impact on geopolitics? Yes: the administration is saying "We really don't want to have to send the Marines into a fight we want no part of in order to save you, so get out now."
The American troops being sent into the region are there to keep things from spilling into the Northern Baltic NATO countries. Biden has been very clear that the United States will not overtly & militarily act to protect Ukraine's sovereignty, and that's an easy message to maintain so long as we don't have troops in Ukraine picking up stranded Americans.
Article 5 is nothing but words which could be broken in the same way.
Let's consider Article 5. It states that in case of armed attack each party "will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
"assist .. by taking .. such action as it deems necessary". Surely, some parties could claim they don't deem necessary sending their help into a fight they don't want to be a part of.
- Adam Smith (The Wealth of Nation)