[mikeash]

Is this based on the misconception that the US violated the Budapest Memorandum by not defending Ukraine? For some reason this idea has a lot of traction, but the agreement doesn’t actually require the signatories to defend Ukraine from a non-nuclear attack, it merely prohibits them from attacking. Russia has violated the agreement but the US has no obligations to act on that.

[mieseratte]

Yes and no, and I suppose it is a bit misleading on my part to not explicitly clarify in the original post. (One cannot simply post on HN...)

The US need not, contractually, support the Ukraine but it makes one realize that the US isn't the World's Police and a defender like some have believed. Nations need fend for themselves.

That, of course, is not the only foreign policy / military issue which highlighted US pullback from global policing actions. At least overt, in-the-news, type actions, as various special forces type operations are going on all the time.

The point is, the US populous is seemingly tired of the forever wars and politicians and their supporting media have grown wise to keep things under the rug as much as possible.

[mikeash]

I don’t understand. The US has never played world police in any sort of blanket fashion. It’s always been subject to whims and almost always limited to situations where it serves our interests in some way (or at least the interests of those in power). I don’t see how there would have been any expectation of US intervention in Ukraine given our past behavior.

You immediately followed the Ukraine reference with “The previous administration hardly bolstered the notion that the US would hold up to promises and supposed red lines.” But there were no promises or red lines. Was that intended as a separate point?

[mieseratte]

> I don’t understand. The US has never played world police in any sort of blanket fashion.

The US has been regularly accused of playing "World Police." We literally have major studio films parodying that fact.

> But there were no promises or red lines.

Syrian chemical weapons use?

To be frank, I cannot tell if you're being needlessly obtuse in order an attempt to draw me into some sort of rhetorical noose to prove me wrong, or if you're simply ignorant of post-WWII history.

[mikeash]

Neither, I just thought you were still taking about Ukraine there, since the whole point of your comment (as I understood it) was that Ukraine was some sort of turning point.

[mieseratte]

Sorry if I was being needlessly provocative.

> that Ukraine was some sort of turning point.

I would argue that it is, that history books paint that as a turning point, of America turning away from the world stage should the trend continue.

After all, it wasn't that long ago the US (via NATO) was involving itself in peace keeping missions in Eastern Europe.

Of course this is contrasted with the rise of JSOC and drone missions (and our forever war in the Middle East), so perhaps not a full turn-away but a shift to a more muted, discrete influence? The US no longer overtly "going to bat" for "Democracy".

> I just thought you were still taking about Ukraine there, since the whole point of your comment

The point was more so that to provide a counter-point to the groby comment that the current administration marks the turning point away from the world stage, policing and protection, etc. We've arguably done that for most of this decade.

[wbl]

Russia shot down a civilian airliner and lied about it. Overr 50 Dutch citizens died. No kinetic response such as destroying Buks in the separatist zone.

[mikeash]

It wasn’t the first time. The USSR even killed a sitting Congressman in one of them. The US did nothing then either.

[mieseratte]

It is worth pointing out the US has also shot down a civilian airliner[0] of a non-friendly nation and it didn't escalate into war so perhaps accidental shoot-downs are not generally accepted as casus belli?

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

[wbl]

And we apologized, paid money, and took responsibility.