Posted on 02/19/2023 9:53:47 AM PST by ganeemead
NATO in no condition to aid ukraine...
We’ve bailed Europe’s ass out twice at extreme cost
If we’d stayed out the first time there’s more than a fair probability hitler never would have come to power
Yet it seems our leadership and many amongst us want to repeat that with the Ukraine
You are a funny guy.
One of my top reasons as well
The British have been extremely successful. The policy of risking small forces at a critical point has paid off extremely well, overall.
Clive at Plassey is the model. There were a great number of Plassey’s in the history of the British empire.
And this was typical of the European experience. That’s how those global empires were created. Including the Russian empire btw.
I can’t imagine what your confused about. Europe has largely abdicated their responsibility for their own defence since the end of WWII. When it comes to their military obligations, Europe has simply maintained the facade of first, being a continent ravaged by war and secondly, burdened with social concerns and thus incapable of funding a collective military, even though their GDP has long been capable of raising and outfitting adequate military forces.
As for the Reagan years, the US bested the Soviets, while Europe watched from the sidelines. They were, however, vocally supportive.
I do appreciate you taking a break from Ukraine cheerleading to spend some time with me.
Is that the 270 year-old model neocons are attempting here? Encourage proxy wars among disgruntled local princes on the border of a declining empire to revolt, thus giving you some allies, and a colonial foothold.
Good luck with that in Ukraine.
Oh, and by the way, you are contradicting your original post.
This is way older than “neocons”. And that “Encourage proxy wars among disgruntled local princes on the border of a declining empire to revolt, thus giving you some allies, and a colonial foothold.” is one way in which European empires were made.
More often these things were opportunistic, seeking high rewards with minimal risk, if an opportunity presented itself.
If you like, you can look into the career of Afonso de Albuquerque, for instance in his conquest of Malacca (1511). Or Cortes at Tenochtitlan. That guy was an opportunist par excellence. He settled on the “coalition of the disaffected” strategy after his coup de main failed.
Kipling’s “The Man who would be King” is a parable of this opportunistic style of conquest. Very much worth a read.
A variation of it was also British grand strategy in Europe, to prevent the consolidation of an opposing great power.
Isn’t it a good thing, then, that they are changing their minds about their “ largely abdicated their responsibility for their own defence” business?
BTW, Europe/NATO took their defense very seriously in the Cold War years.
“”When I became old enough, in the late-Carter administration, to really pay attention the the political & ecomomic situation, both here in the USA and in Europe, it became clear that NATO was largely a political & ecomomic millstone around the neck of the US.””
You are wrong about our NATO allies during those and the Reagan years, your answers are changing the era and avoiding my original question, and getting into insults for some reason.
Why that simple question of whether you were including the Reagan years set you off, who knows.
Take that "gender is a social construct" wokesters!
I will go with option number 1 as a primary factor.
As a side note, I expect that Putin truly believed he could take down the Ukraine in a week, and there would be no effective countermoves from NATO. See that option #1 again.
It is always dangerous to believe your own propaganda.
Every war starts out with an accumulation of incompetent commanders. They make lots of horrendous mistakes. Winning armies purge those guys pretty quickly. The Russians are well advanced into this unpleasant education. And NATO? That remains to be seen.
As for option #2? I have no doubt that Russian paranoia was a factor. The Russians have a long history of being invaded from the east and the west. It is ingrained in their culture to see threats everywhere, even from supposedly weaker and inferior forces. They are not wrong either.
I see no impossible contradictions in #1 and #2. People often act from conflicting and incompatible beliefs. In any case, option #2 makes a great rationalization when you need to rally public support from the Russian people. Whether we believe it or not does not matter. They do.
At the core, the Ukraine project was a land and resource grab that looked like it was going to be easy. Refer back to that option #1. All the gas and oil deposits are in the eastern part of the Ukraine, along with the greater concentration of Russian nationals and descendants. Knocking out western Ukraine and demilitarizing the area was going to be a bonus.
Why certainly, the mighty Russian army could take on this project with a six-axis combined force attack and get it all wrapped up in a month. Except that they couldn't.
What actually happened should be an object lesson in the consequences of believing your own propaganda. Let us not make the same mistakes.
It’s a classic.
In some ways I find the second part, mainly on the long marches post-Tenochtitlan, the most telling, as a detailed example of the daily grind of conquest.
“ The British have been extremely successful. The policy of risking small forces at a critical point has paid off extremely well, overall.
Clive at Plassey is the model. There were a great number of Plassey’s in the history of the British empire…”
************************************************************************
Outstanding. Then I highly recommend that the UK promptly relocate a ready UK brigade or regiment (are there ACTUALLY any now in a state of readiness?) to Bakhmut and turn the tide there. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Rule Britannia!
Trump wanted the other NATO countries to pull their weight, he did not campaign on pulling out of the alliance.
Today we are getting our wish as they are increasing spending and waking up to the Russian threat that Trump saw.
They’ve had a small advance guard in Poland for a while. I think their intention is to reinforce that to a brigade at need.
See post 34.
I suppose the Russians are adept at doublethink, Orwell style.
I intended to address the local propagandists. however, who still have to exist in a classically disputatious environment.
Lolz no
If they had then their strategy would not have revolved around their force and some in place US forces holding /slowing an invasion while hundreds of thousands of US troops raced to Europe to grab their pre positioned equipment
If Europe had taken it seriously they wouldn’t have needed that, they would have had enough nuclear Arsenal to be a true deterrent rather than a “me too” and the world would look very different now
Europe was scared and pretended they never did what a serious self reliant group would have done
Lolz yes.
You are at the least, confused.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.