Airspace violation by Russia.

[PJ_Godzilla]

Really? Bombing some pajamas clad rice farmers in the jungle is comparable to WWII in Europe. Really?!

That's the definition of "silly" right there.


And yes, if Russia actually commits to a large scale invasion of Ukraine, Europe cannot stand idly by. If Kuwait was unacceptable, if South Korea was unacceptable, so would Ukraine. However, Russia is not going to conquer the Ukraine. At most Putin will try for a land bridge to the Crimean peninsula, but even that is a stretch. Russia will annex the rebel territories, or they will become mini-satellite-states to Moscow. Either way Putin gets the oil and gas there. Putin doesn't need to hold a vast territory like Ukraine with a hostile population. Nobody wants that.

GScholz, Apparently you are unaware that there were literally hundreds of thousands of American soldiers on the ground in Vietnam - from 1965 (the escalation of in-country military personnel resulted in approximately HALF A MILLION US Servicemen stationed in Vietnam) until 1973, there was a large number of US ground combatants there. More tonnage was dropped on N. Vietnam than was dropped on Europe in WWII. N. Vietnamese air defenses were quire advanced. 58,000 US servicement died there - approx 20% of our us deaths in WWII. That is NOT an order of magnitude difference. The duration of the conflict was, dependent on definition, arguably about 13 years.
 There was a lot more to it than merely dropping a few bombs on some rice paddies. Try 4 million total civilian casualties... and 2 million military casualties. These are big numbers - especially given that there were only 2 primary combatants.                   

As for Russia invading the ukraine, it already happened and Europe did stand idly by. The Crimea is the throat of the Ukraine and Putin already seized it. Europe and the us did nothing and will continue to do nothing. Otherwise, yes, I agree, the plan will be to annex the "rebel" territories. Taking the rest is unnecessary.

Meanwhile, your stance appears a bit self-confused. If you agree that the Crimea and those states likely to be "annexed" (Czechoslovakia, anyone?)  are those of value and if you accept that the assimilation of those into Russia is more or less a done deal, then what, exactly, is unpalateable to Europe? As I state, you, us, the rest of the common market have already written this thing off. Why maintain this farcical stance that somehow there is the possibility of something being perpetrated by Russia in the ukraine that would actually shake Europe and/or NATO into action?

Remember my reference to Stalingrad? Leaving aside the whole political package that rides with Time's Man of the last Century, I'm going to be entirely heretical to the Western orthodoxy here: the West, longer term, reaped real benefit from having an industrial/powerful state between it and the resurgent East. The drawbacks of the vacuum left in the absence of such a state is not only becoming painfully apparent now but will make itself felt to greater extent later.

[Motherland]

Surely you jest. Yeah, there were small contingents of many nations involved in the latter -even With no civilian involvement and hardly any awareness..? Yeah, how does that compare? What? 200 Dutch and 6 F-16s or so? How does that compare to a full invasion and occupation? "Genocide" in Yugoslavia? Let's see, was there even a common market uniform involved in perpetrating that?
continent roiled by mass invasion, war, and violence to.a relatively pacific place -and that point is indisputable on any comparison that comprehends relative scale.

"hardly any awareness"
 
Your ignorance doesn't count for 'hardly any awareness'. The UK, for example, deployed about a third as many troops in Iraq initially as the United States, which is a pretty significant figure for a country about a third the size of the US population wise. I don't know why one should think that their population isn't constantly embroiled in debate (and highly 'aware') over this... unless you're talking about awareness in the United States, which, if things only count if there's an awareness of them in the US, then nothing ever in the history of Western Civilization has happened.

"was there a common market uniform involved in perpetrating that"
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you downplaying the genocide because it wasn't committed by a single centralized government? "It's only genocide if it's politically convenient for it to be genocide"- I'll keep that in mind.

The breakup of Yugoslavia was a large conflict (was it WWII? no. somehow very few wars compare in size or scope to what was by a ridiculous margin the largest and bloodiest conflict in all of human history) which had double the casualties that the invasion of Afghanistan did and similar figures to Iraq depending on the estimates. The only reason it seems insignificant to you is because the US played a minor role, and that role is not well publicized because we got diddlyed up

(I don't think Europe will do anything about Russia though, just to clarify)

[GScholz]

PJ_Godzilla, so in other words nowhere near the figures for WWII except for tonnage dropped, which is a function of technological advancement, not superiority of numbers. Comparing it to ALL of WWII in Europe is even more ridiculous considering that Germany alone had one hundred times more military deaths than your US figure for the VN war. More soldiers, tanks, planes and other vehicles were committed to single battles on the Eastern Front that the US fielded during the entire VN war! The Soviets alone lost 83,000 tanks and 146,000 aircraft! You simply can't have even an inkling of the scale of WWII in Europe if you think ANY other conflict in all of history compares to it!

[PJ_Godzilla]

"hardly any awareness"
 
Your ignorance doesn't count for 'hardly any awareness'. The UK, for example, deployed about a third as many troops in Iraq initially as the United States, which is a pretty significant figure for a country about a third the size of the US population wise. I don't know why one should think that their population isn't constantly embroiled in debate (and highly 'aware') over this... unless you're talking about awareness in the United States, which, if things only count if there's an awareness of them in the US, then nothing ever in the history of Western Civilization has happened.

"was there a common market uniform involved in perpetrating that"
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. Are you downplaying the genocide because it wasn't committed by a single centralized government? "It's only genocide if it's politically convenient for it to be genocide"- I'll keep that in mind.

The breakup of Yugoslavia was a large conflict (was it WWII? no. somehow very few wars compare in size or scope to what was by a ridiculous margin the largest and bloodiest conflict in all of human history) which had double the casualties that the invasion of Afghanistan did and similar figures to Iraq depending on the estimates. The only reason it seems insignificant to you is because the US played a minor role, and that role is not well publicized because we got diddlyed up

(I don't think Europe will do anything about Russia though, just to clarify)

Okay, then we've reached the same bottom line. The rest strikes me as near agreement separated by a common language.

As for the "awareness" issue, I give the British public no more or less credit than the US public. understand, there are about 40% of the population in either nation that actually bothers to read the news. But, the point was, compare the "awareness" level of either public regarding the proportional involvement of their troops in Iraq (about 3:1 - actually sounds reasonable, though I think it's actually more like 5:1 - we should recheck those ) to the "awareness" level of either public in WWII. Do you disagree that survivors of the London Blitz were more aware of what the war meant to them than would be bystanders? THAT's what I meant.

As for the Yugoslav issue, no, I DON'T disregard genocide. THe point here is that we're talking about European State policy. Much of the Yugoslav "action" was perpetrated by something that blurs the line between state policy and the policies of loosley organized groups with murderous agendas. Those states that stepped in to quell the violence were conducting something that more resembled a police action, albeit a fairly bloody one. I don't think US ground personnel were even involved, though I'm painfully aware that Uk troops were there on the ground. In this sense, too, Yugoslavia differs from the Iraq war. understand, what we would be talking about in conflict with Russia is much more like the second round of the Iraq war than it would be like Yugoslavia.

[PJ_Godzilla]

PJ_Godzilla, so in other words nowhere near the figures for WWII except for tonnage dropped, which is a function of technological advancement, not superiority of numbers. Comparing it to ALL of WWII in Europe is even more ridiculous considering that Germany alone had one hundred times more military deaths than your US figure for the VN war. More soldiers, tanks, planes and other vehicles were committed to single battles on the Eastern Front that the US fielded during the entire VN war! The Soviets alone lost 83,000 tanks and 146,000 aircraft! You simply can't have even an inkling of the scale of WWII in Europe if you think ANY other conflict in all of history compares to it!

That's why I compared it to Us casualties. Understand, casualties are also a function of technological advancement. As, IIRC, the author of Frontsoldaten said, over time he learned that the German maxim, "sweat saves blood" had been replaced with the American bromide, "equipment saves men". So, 58000 US casualties is about 1/6th of US WWII casualties, like for like. As I state, there were only two combatants, here, save for a few small contingents of, for example, ROKs and Australians. So, it is entirley plausible to state that, for the Us military, Vietnam was of similar scale to WWII - ie, not separated by orders of magnitude. No, I will NOT argue that Vietnam, scalewise in total, approaches WWII, but I will argue that it does from the perspective of US military involvement (albeit at a fraction - but a significant one).

However, your focus on this point is a little unnexcessary anyway, since it only served a broader argument - one which you seem to have vacated to  argue about this "angels on the head of a pin" item.

Are you somehow disagreeing that Nato and/or some coalition of Eu states are actually going to take on Russia? Are you arguing that modern Europe has the appetite for war that old Europe did?

THat's the forest. Why are you so focused on the one tree - which is entirely plausible in terms of military experience (from the perspective of the war machine itself - where it counts) anyway? Hell, I could use the scale argument regarding Germany the other way anyhow to buttress my point earlier about the pacification of Europe: all the guys who had the burning desire to live the dream (of taking that panzer ride out on the steppes) are long since dead or 'reeducated".

Understand, this isn't about you or Motherland or me. But postwar Europe isn't that same as prewar Europe - and even if you choose to disagree with my argument about the level of recent activity by respective Western militaries, I don't think you can successfully argue that anyone in Europe in their right mind wants a war with Russia or would support one, given a choice. Prewar, it seems to have been entirely plausible. Why do I say that? Because it happened. As for the US, it's also not going to happen, and for only slightly different reasons, some of which are shared.

[GScholz]

If so then the UK should also only be compared to its sole contributions in WWII which make the Falklands and Iraq just as "comparable" as your example. To say nothing of my country's postwar involvements...

I still think you have the wrong impression of Europe; it is a heavily armed place. Only in naval power does the USA out match the EU25 nations, and that's not counting all the non-EU NATO countries. More combat aircraft, tanks and personnel in active service, and a LOT more trained reservists. Europe/NATO is more than a match for Russia conventionally, the only issue is the will to use it. I think Europe and indeed the rest of the world will not stand idly by if Russia conquers the Ukraine. However, Russia won't conquer Ukraine; Russia will only annex or help "liberate" the contested areas in eastern Ukraine, and the legality of that is debatable since self determination is a major human right. The majority of the people in Crimea wanted Crimea to re-join Russia. The majority of the people in the contested areas in eastern Ukraine want to separate from Ukraine. These people are predominantly of Russian ethnicity. Is it wrong for Russia to support these people?

Tell you what... Here the other day I read in VG online (a national newspaper here) an article on how the Russians were supplying the Ukrainian separatists with weapons and supplies. Right next to that article was another (more positively worded) article of how Norwegian C-130s were part of the NATO effort of supplying the Kurdish rebels/separatists in northern Iraq with arms and supplies. I found that ironic.

[PJ_Godzilla]

If so then the UK should also only be compared to its sole contributions in WWII which make the Falklands and Iraq just as "comparable" as your example. To say nothing of my country's postwar involvements...

I still think you have the wrong impression of Europe; it is a heavily armed place. Only in naval power does the USA out match the EU25 nations, and that's not counting all the non-EU NATO countries. More combat aircraft, tanks and personnel in active service, and a LOT more trained reservists. Europe/NATO is more than a match for Russia conventionally, the only issue is the will to use it. I think Europe and indeed the rest of the world will not stand idly by if Russia conquers the Ukraine. However, Russia won't conquer Ukraine; Russia will only annex or help "liberate" the contested areas in eastern Ukraine, and the legality of that is debatable since self determination is a major human right. The majority of the people in Crimea wanted Crimea to re-join Russia. The majority of the people in the contested areas in eastern Ukraine want to separate from Ukraine. These people are predominantly of Russian ethnicity. Is it wrong for Russia to support these people?

Tell you what... Here the other day I read in VG online (a national newspaper here) an article on how the Russians were supplying the Ukrainian separatists with weapons and supplies. Right next to that article was another (more positively worded) article of how Norwegian C-130s were part of the NATO effort of supplying the Kurdish rebels/separatists in northern Iraq with arms and supplies. I found that ironic.

Honestly, Scholz, I want to believe that your version of Europe is the truer version. And you're trading dialog with a guy who loves to read Jane's publications, so I'm entirely aware of the technical capability and raw capacity of the European war machine. That's not what I doubt.

What I doubt is the political will to use any of it - and I have similar doubts about the US. It'd be one thing if survival were on the line, but this last will probably be more determined by demography (which is destiny) and this too does not bode well (say no more).

as for your argument about the British, yes, they're exceptional. They also are a bit of a pariah, having not accepted the same level of commonization, as is, I note, Norway (whose economic fundamentals are, I think, exceptional - well worth investment via etf, for example)


BTW, I find your example form the press quite telling.  The Russians fully understand that they must not wake Europe up by doing anything outright barbaric. But, regardless, they will have their way - while we're off doing the Greek equivalent of invading Syracuse (see, eg, Alcibiades - thwe parallel to the modern west is stunning).

[zack1234]

This is "how many angels on a pin head" discussions

Vietnam was just as important as WWII

The Commies knew how far the West was willing to go

The Ukraine problem has already been sorted, this gibberish on the TV is for you lot, so you stock up on beans and tin foil hats

[PJ_Godzilla]

This is "how many angels on a pin head" discussions

Vietnam was just as important as WWII

The Commies knew how far the West was willing to go

The Ukraine problem has already been sorted, this gibberish on the TV is for you lot, so you stock up on beans and tin foil hats

Now THAT'S funny. Why? Because while I'm rolling over to go back to my "sleeping West" posture, I figured you'd already have the Merlin warming up out on the tarmac... but not for the 'kraine which, as you rightfully note, is a fait accompli, but instead to firebomb my house for my artful defense on the utility of Time's Man of the Last Century who, despite what some might have you believe, was an entirely ordinary autocrat viewed against the long-term sweep of history (albeit one who still served a couple of useful purposes).

I like a bit of gibberish as a garnish. It's very good with poultry or a nice meat pie. In fact, at Thanksgiving, we usually get a Turkey with gibberish.

To which Zack replied, "go eat an American Hot Dog "

"Then enjoy some <eeeeech>  baseball "

"perhaps then you can watch some Honey-boo-boo reruns on your American cable TV. Her mother is the epitome of the ideal colonist, is she not? "

[zack1234]

If it were not for Churchill, Adolf one ball would have been a god

And America would have been a third world country

He was half colonial as well

[PJ_Godzilla]

If it were not for Churchill, Adolf one ball would have been a god

And America would have been a third world country

He was half colonial as well

He was a one-nut?

That explains why he waited so long to tie the knot with Eva... he was "saving up".

Who was half-colonial? Surely you don't mean ... Winnie... for his time there in the land of Boerdom (it made for good reading)? Or perhaps you're thinking of his affinity for Nascar, Taco Bell, and portly women...?

Old one-nut was a Vegan (that usually means no fun and a bad date - can't eat pork, for example- , at least w/r the women I've known) and a good sprinter. How do I know this? Let's just say he was good at finishing a race. I also note that, like Batman, he could enter a convenience store without... ah, never mind...

With apologies to all and sundry. I'm no fan of one-nut. I'm just saying, what you've got left is sort of vacuum-y, demonstrating , once again, that there's an opportunity cost to everything.

[zack1234]

 

[PJ_Godzilla]

Zack was tickled. I am gratified and can die a happy man.

[PJ_Godzilla]

But, see here, Zack, I've got one more issue with you.

It's about that tower of Babel just to your south. Last I was there, some rather cornholish entity had decorated a place of honor with a big blue chicken. This will never do, of course. I told one Barry Clarke thatI was personally offended. After all, I said, HMS Victory took real damage and the Duke himself was killed, his dying words uttered... "no... more... pie...". A place to commemorate such a thing is no place to stand a chicken.

Barry sort of took this in stride. He too didn't "like it" but he too was foreign to the place since he lives closer to Dunton, I want to say somewhere on the coast. He changed the subject, apparently finding the whole thing distasteful and instead told me a story about a relativ ewho had landed his damged Yak-9T on the beach some time during the big show there in late '40. Of course, he was court-martialed for not bailing, the shortage of pilots being so dire that they were instructed to dump crippled aircraft. The prosecutor reconsidered when he realized that punishment would also take the pilot out of the fray.  

You need to hold these bluudy sootherners more accountable.

[zack1234]

Yes indeed kiss me hardy

Bruv is one of those southern softies who call a sausage a savaloy

I would venture south but would not know what to say when i got their as they are talk gibberish and eat whelks mussels and jellied eels, handsum!

I'll ave you butler!