Putin, Deterrence, and the Lessons of World War II (Audio)

Hoover Institution (via SoundCloud podcast service) ^ | 4/16/14 | Victor Davis Hanson

[BarnacleCenturion]

Right. The Spetsnaz operate covertly. They are training, advising, supplying weapons, etc, but the folks taking over government buildings are the Ukrainians themselves.

[1rudeboy]

And by “etc” you mean “invading.” Seriously, just use the word . . . you won’t lose your argument.

[BarnacleCenturion]

Ok, if you think that a handful of people can invade a country, call it an invasion then.

Just don’t tell me that this is just like the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia.

[1rudeboy]

Every dictionary with which I'm familiar does not make the number of invaders a condition of whether the word "invade" is appropriate to use.

That is your construction . . . and in terms of the English language, it is faulty.

[BarnacleCenturion]

in·vade
verb
1.(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.

Are the Russians occupying the Ukraine? In military tactical terms, no.

But if you want to call it an invasion, call it an invasion. My problem was with the World War 2/Nazi analogy.

[1rudeboy]

I love discussions of semantics. “Subjugate or occupy.” Note the word, “or.” Now argue that Russia has not “subjugated” Crimea.

[BroJoeK]

Timber Rattler: "the U.S. no longer has the military infrastructure or personnel, the economic might, or the political will to wage Cold War II.
All of that went away, beginning with the Peace Dividend and New World Order, or have you missed that?"

I missed nothing.
The US military is today being cut back to pre-9/11/01 Clinton era "peace dividend" levels = circa 3.5% of GDP.
After 9/11, the Bush II WOT increased military spending by about 1/3 to 4.5%+ of GDP.
These numbers compare to President Reagan's 7% of GDP defense spending, Vietnam era 10%, Korean War peak 15%, and Second World War peak of 45% of GDP.
Nothing like those numbers are imaginable today, short of some catastrophic world events.

However, strategic rivalries with countries like Russia and China never stopped, and the US military is still, in large part, configured based on analyses of what those countries can & can't do.
Today China is seen as rapidly expanding and modernizing its capabilities, hence the now often-announced "pivot" towards Asia.
And let us not forget that there are huge qualitative differences between technologies of today versus those of 20 years ago, much less WWII.

So the important question is not so much "how much do we spend?", as it is, "how much can our side do, compared to potential adversaries?"
In this respect, we still maintain serious advantages.

Bottom line: I certainly agree with you that the US has cut, and is still cutting back way too far.
But that is inherent in Democrats' leadership -- it's part of their political DNA to reduce the military by 1/3, while increasing Food Stamps by 1/3.
That's their definition of "happiness".
And none of that can change so long as Democrats are in charge, or have a veto (i.e., one house of Congress).

On top of that, we have Democrats' international "leadership" under the likes of John ("reminiscent of Genghis Kahn") Kerry, Barack (we apologize for America) O'bama, and Chuck (allegedly Republican) Hagel.
These do not inspire confidence in me, though they claim to have won friends and influenced people worldwide.

Again, my point is: none of this can change under our current political mixture, which means that has to change, and soon.
And that brings us to Victor Davis Hanson's most important point, which he saves until the end of his talk.

If you haven't heard it already, GO THERE NOW!

Timber Rattler: "we don't have the power to push the Russians (or the Red Chinese for that matter) back anymore. Period."

We never had either the power or desire to invade mainland Russia or China.
Our goal was always "containment", meaning: make them stay in their own countries.
And we never did that alone, always with allies, of which we still have some.

And we can still do a lot, with our allies, to make the new Czarists in Russia pay a steep price for their expansionist fantasies.

[BroJoeK]

BarnacleCenturion quoting: "Russia states that it is prepared to, but has not yet undertaken military intervention to protect people living in the Ukraine and in particular ethnic Russians living there."

FRiend, are you deliberately deceiving yourself, or is somebody doing that to you?
Do you not comprehend that Crimea is/was Ukrainian sovereign territory which was invaded by Russian forces, who then staged a phony plebiscite and claimed to "annex" Crimea to Russia?

Those are facts, about which there is no serious dispute.

But what about the rest of Ukraine?
Well, there we see Russian forces, ready for combat, massed on the borders of Eastern Ukraine.
Within the largely Russian-speaking provinces of Eastern Ukraine, there have been disguised forces, seemingly Russian but claiming to be something else, taking over various government buildings, and in the process, some deaths -- how many, don't know.

So what exactly is your problem, and why are you attempting to deny what are obvious facts?

[lodi90]

Right. The Spetsnaz operate covertly. They are training, advising, supplying weapons, etc, but the folks taking over government buildings are the Ukrainians themselves.

---

You have your facts wrong. Russian Army special forces have seized strategic locations in Ukraine and then handed them off to the local terrorists.

[Jim Noble]

Putin is exactly equivalent to democratically elected Chancellor Hitler in, let's say 1938

Hitler was the most popular politician in Austria in 1938.

The Anschluss was enormously popular with Austrians. If Hitler had stopped with the Sudetenland, the NSDAP would still be in power, and Germany would be the most powerful country in the world.

[1010RD]

Excellent. Are you available for Nat. Sec. Advisor under a newly elected conservative President, starting Jan. 20 2017?

[BroJoeK]

101ORD: "Excellent. Are you available for Nat. Sec. Advisor under a newly elected conservative President, starting Jan. 20 2017?"

Thanks, and no, but we can certainly hope & pray our guys do well in November, then even better in 2016.

;-)

[BroJoeK]

Jim Noble: "If Hitler had stopped with the Sudetenland..."

But he couldn't stop, for several reasons, the first one being his ultimate goal was to reverse the outcome of the First World War, and restore Germany to its position in, say, March 1918:

A second reason, perhaps even more important, as Victor Davis Hanson points out in this audio: imperial conquest is not only fun, it's addictive.
Once hooked on it, leaders find they can't live without the adulation and glorification it brings them.
And so they continue, until the battlefield results turn against them, and they are forced (often by death) to "kick the habit".

From the international perspective, our goal must be to make the taste of "victory" so bitter, leaders like Putin will not wish to eat of it again.

[BroJoeK]

henkster: "The Chechen issue isn’t really analagous to the “Jewish Question.” "

Objectively, you're correct, but subjectively?
In 1938 your average American was at least somewhat anti-Semitic -- let's use HL Menken as our archetype here.
Americans knew that Jews were often mistreated (i.e., pogroms in Russia), and had seen enough propaganda to suppose there must be good reasons for it.
So they did not take Hitler's actions against Jews by early 1938 as particularly unusual or alarming.

Compare today: your average American tries hard not to be "anti-Muslim", just "anti-radical-Muslim".
We know that Muslims in places like Chechnya are often mistreated (i.e., Putin's war against them), and have seen enough news reports to suppose there must be good reasons for it.
So we do not take Putin's actions against Chechen Muslims as particularly unusual or alarming.

No, of course I'm not saying objectively Putin is Hitler in this regard.
But Putin is certainly subjectively perceived here in roughly the same way Hitler was in early 1938.