I am really alarmed about developments with Russia.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Individual states might be too weak, but there is no reason the EU together couldn't come up with a powerful military force if they wanted to. But they won't as long as they have the crutch of the US supporting NATO like we do. They don't want to because they don't want to spend the money and we're doing it for them.

Oh I agree, but I don't think we could defend them in time even if we wanted to at this moment, unless it was with tactical nukes. Look how quickly Hitler put the unwary continent under his thumb. I don't think Russia has aspirations beyond its former client states even in its wildest dreams. Then again, that was the thinking in Munich in 1939 when Hitler was allowed to keep Czechoslovakia.

It isn't crazy to think in terms of what a country is capable of. This is the very reason that Russia totally ignores what we say about our missile shield deployment in Poland. They only look to what capability it gives us. These are lessons that other generations have learned. I hope we don't have to learn them, but the reality seems to be that once the generation that has experienced an authentic threat first hand passes away, the new generation doesn't quiet believe it can ever emerge until it does. Fortunately we have always had the luxury of geographic isolation.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

speaks to our need to suffocate the Russian economy by becoming indepedence of oil.

Only drilling and using our own oil would not accomplish that. Moving to a different energy source altogether might.

[exUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I'm sure this is comforting to Lithuania, Latvia, Ukraine, et al. That when the bombs fall, and tanks roll in, and children are dead in the streets, we will be whistling, and talking about the dangers of a certain man in headdress hiding in a cave in Pakistan.

from the Ukraine last month. She said she would love to go back. I don't think so.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Oh I agree, but I don't think we could defend them in time even if we wanted to at this moment, unless it was with tactical nukes. Look how quickly Hitler put the unwary continent under his thumb. I don't think Russia has aspirations beyond its former client states even in its wildest dreams. Then again, that was the thinking in Munich in 1939 when Hitler was allowed to keep Czechoslovakia.

It isn't crazy to think in terms of what a country is capable of. This is the very reason that Russia totally ignores what we say about our missile shield deployment in Poland. They only look to what capability it gives us. These are lessons that other generations have learned. I hope we don't have to learn them, but the reality seems to be that once the generation that has experienced an authentic threat first hand passes away, the new generation doesn't quiet believe it can ever emerge until it does. Fortunately we have always had the luxury of geographic isolation.

Which is why Putin has made Bush look like a joke over there. Bush expected Putin to take him at his word that the missile defense in E. Europe was about terrorism when Putin only sees the potential of using it against Russia. Bush's foreign policy is at best naive, and at worst, totally moronic.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Really? Feels more like the 1950s (Soviet [now Russian] expansionism, Western [and now parts of Eastern] Europe joining to counter the threat, the specter of nuclear conflict, etc.).

Your comments speak to the importance of NATO in maintaining peace in Europe, as well as continued U.S. commitment to the region.

Not in all ways, but you don't have the polarity of literally every nation in the world aligned with one or the other. Nor does the US have the ability currently to stop an aggressive Russia. I was referring to the idea that there are many world powers right now. It is not a two pole cold war, and it really isn't the hegemony we enjoyed in the 1990. There are many powers at the moment.

In other ways a belligerent expansionist Russia is like a late 1930s Germany. Very well armed with neighbors who don't really believe it has aspirations beyond just a little real estate. With the US spread so thin, I think that Russia could once again, in very short order, take control of everything east of the Rhine, and perhaps beyond. We have troops stationed there, but not in nearly sufficient numbers. My guess is that we would fall back, perhaps to France, in the face of an advancing Russian Army, and hope that we could hold them while we mobilized the rest.

I have no reason to doubt that a mobilized and fully deployed US military, which remains the most advanced in the world by some distance, could defeat any army in the world. I am particularly given to believe that air superiority would be established in fairly short order.

The nuclear angle is interesting in that is some ways it may be that we are "post nuclear", that is, no one really thinks that anyone is going to use them (except maybe Israel).

Again, I doubt very very much that any of this comes to pass, but much stranger and unlikely events have unfolded in the past. These developments are worth keeping an eye on.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

From taking the above 3 countries? It has to be strongly considered.

Good to know we agree about something.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by BlueK

If Russia is that huge of a threat, NOW is the time to encourage the European nations to step up to the plate and build their defenses. We can't do it for them forever, and being caught in the middle is not in our best interests over the long term or we will forever be drawn into European conflicts like Bosnia that should have been handled by the EU rather than us.

This is another catch 22, Europe can't afford to build their defenses. They have spent the last 50 years directing those revenues into social programs because they haven't needed a military. Do you remember how they rioted in the streets in France over (IIRC) legislation that would make it possible for employers to terminate their employees? Europe is so fat and lazy that I don't know for sure that even looking down the barrel of a Kalashnikov will motivate the populations to elect leaders willing to do away with all those government provided goodies.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

This is another catch 22, Europe can't afford to build their defenses. They have spent the last 50 years directing those revenues into social programs because they haven't needed a military. Do you remember how they rioted in the streets in France over (IIRC) legislation that would make it possible for employers to terminate their employees? Europe is so fat and lazy that I don't know for sure that even looking down the barrel of a Kalashnikov will motivate the populations to elect leaders willing to do away with all those government provided goodies.

Good point. And we have been enablers of that.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

This is another catch 22, Europe can't afford to build their defenses. They have spent the last 50 years directing those revenues into social programs because they haven't needed a military. Do you remember how they rioted in the streets in France over (IIRC) legislation that would make it possible for employers to terminate their employees? Europe is so fat and lazy that I don't know for sure that even looking down the barrel of a Kalashnikov will motivate the populations to elect leaders willing to do away with all those government provided goodies.

This same Europe will howl about how wrong the US is if it uses military force to halt Russian aggression, but the howls will be even louder if the US doesn't use force to stop the Russians from using aggression against Europe.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BlueK

Good point. And we have been enablers of that.

Can't argue with that.