[quote=Darcs]
Okay, I'll be honest, I want a world where no country has an army.[/quote]

Well you're not going to get one because armies are checks against the political adventures of other nations. If all armies were to disappear then the door opens for another highly adventurous state to restore their military before anyone else and start picking up other nations, or even states within the larger nation as Be Sharp seems to be advocating (but then again everything he writes sounds so contradictory I'm not sure what point he's trying to make).

And even if not to guard one's self or others from the military missions of another to act as a physical deterrent against unwanted political or economic subjugation of a people. A guard against the defacto control as they're a physical defensive factor.

Once more in this modern era larger world militaries - such as the US army - act as large scale humanitarian organizations as well as operating as subjugating forces for "imperialist tendencies". This is a practice which has been underway since before [url=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cuny/laptop/humanrelief.html]Alexander the Great and has expanded to the scale it is now since the Second World War[/url]. There are populations who would be very, very pissed if you removed the largest, most well-supplied, and most well-funded humanitarian assistance front from the world.

There's a reason the US Army often emphasis their role in being humanitarian re-builders of devastated states or countries, [url=http://www.army.mil/humanitarian/]because they do just that.[/url] ([url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Humanitarian_military_operations]Also.[/url]

So abolishing armies will not help anything. You're opening up a few doors that shouldn't be opened by trusting people to not extend themselves beyond what they're allowed and found this on trust. Economic and political sanctions can only do so much, so Putin is happily showing us in Ukraine; he hasn't pulled out yet.

[quote=Darcs]Ukraine is butthurt because they couldn't have their territory full of people who wanted to be with Russia. Crimea is historically Russian and a majority of the people there believed they simply were Russians. I'm not really saying it was Russia's place to openly annex one part of a country from another, or that everyone in Crimea is happy with his arrangement. I'm just saying there's more to this that meets the eye. It's not like Germoney and Polska.
[/quote]

Just because Russia is basing their territorial claims on the region as being Russians live or once lived there doesn't make their excuse valid or correct, or just at all. Because if we're going off this than Turkic Khazars should have Ukraine and Crimea restored to them. But because Khazaria and the Khazar people no longer exist then we should just throw the entire region at the Tatars because they're the Turkic heirs to Crimea. The Slavs aren't even native to Ukraine, they moved south into Kiev from Ladoga and Novogorod (so while we're giving land out to people with claims lets give all of Eastern Russia to and more beyond west of the Ural to Siberian Turks because they lived their longer than their Russian oppressors).

And while we're at it, let's remove vodka and return Circassia to the Circassian diaspora. They have a more legitimate claim to southern Russia than the Russians themselves have. Yea, that sounds right. Totally as justifiable as the Russian claim to Ukraine and Crimea.

If we let the Russians have their way then Putin will for sure invite the Novaya Russiya movement into the Russian political machine and suddenly everything from the Polish border with Germany and the Danube will be Russian because they claim it, and the political balance of Europe will be greatly upset. This is the real danger in letting Putin have his way, a great disruption of Europe as a whole.

And Putin can do this because there are no military powers in Europe anymore. No one can send (or afford to send) soldiers to discourage Russia before or during the current occupation of eastern Ukraine. They all put the bulk of their military dependency on the US who - guess what - is cutting back. Europe fucked themselves and did basically what Be Sharp advocates what should happen: a shift of military dependency from one to another in the hopes the pattern of military spending will remain the same and totally not become stressed when a more unified political entity decides to shift around in their bed in such a way it threatens them both. Then both nations (or all in this compact) are threatened because they all surrendered their military expertise - or most of all that counts - to this one entity now cutting back their spending.

#RestoreCrimeanTatarKhanateInReperationsForStalin'sMassButcheringOfPeacefulPeople