Jacoby wrote:
FWIW, I would not have turned the Panama Canal over as I believe since we built it then it should be ours in perpetuity. Could it be taken back at this point?
Yes, giving back Hong Kong was a strategic mistake by the Brits, they lost their main point of control in South East Asia, that being said they had to because as the empire decayed so did the economic viability of Hong Kong to the British. Hong Kong was fine, so long as they controlled the entire sea route from Hong Kong to India to South Africa to West Africa, then to Britain. Once they lost the Boer War and thus South Africa, and then India, Hong Kong became economically unviable so they were forced to unload it, political strategy be damned. Also remember, the agreement to hand over Hong Kong was done a century before it actually happened-- hence the reason the Boer War and problems in India being pertinent to the deal.
As for the Panama Canal, we financed it, we didn't really build it. There were some Americans there but the majority of workers were Panamanians and Costa Ricans, and the engineering was done by the French. We treated those laborers like s**t, but that's beside the point. Relinquishing the Panama Canal was what I would call neutral-- our ships still get basically free port fees (American vessels are only charged cost), and we don't have the headache of overseeing a large infrastructure far away from the States. That said, we did relinquish control which loosened our grip on the entirety of South America-- and that could have repercussions in the future. It's also another chip we could have used for trade leverage with other countries that we just don't have now. So yeah neutral, leaning slightly bad.
That said, Ukraine is not that place. Ukraine is vital to western Europe's buffer. The Polish are some of our strongest allies in Europe, and if Ukraine falls they're next. I already mentioned the food importance and the trade importance there so I'm not going to rehash that, but yes, Ukraine is a vitally important region-- it always has been, it's been theorized that grain from the Ukraine region was what actually started the Trojan War all the way back ~1000 B.C.
As for Syria, I'm all for that going the way of the dodo. If Russia wants it so bad, they can have it-- assuming they move from the Ukraine. If not, then yes, we need to be there-- again, for a chip on the table to negotiate what we really want.
That said, just giving Russia things to appease them-- that's ridiculous.