Ukraine

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

47 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Doesn't that set up the following choices for a country?

Door # 1: permanently maintain a sufficient military to instantly respond to any situation.  Judging by WWII (which is what we have been discussing) that means a standing military of no less than 10% of the total population, with all the vehicles, tanks, ships, aircraft etc necessary for them to be able to be instantly deployed into combat.  Alternatively:

Door #2: never ever declare war, no matter the situation.

Don

Hi Don,

I see a Door #3)  Do not declare war until you have ( if not already have ) a sufficient military to instantly respond to any situation.  This is a version of your Door #1.

After WW I, the UK & the US reduced their militaries substantially; as did most of the other winning combatants.  IMO the general thinking was that it was the War to End All Wars.  When Churchill began talking about the German re-armament in the mid/late 30's, no one would listen to him.  There was no stomach for more war.

I think that the BEF, going to France to fight the Germans, was an honorable gesture.  As to any military successes, not so much. *  IMO the same thing with the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo.  One substantial benefit of the Doolittle Raid was to show Japan that we could, at a considerable cost, actually strike them at home.

I guess a Door #4 would be to declare war with the condition that you will not do anything until you have a sufficient military.

Jerry Baumchen

*  This also was an honorable gesture.  However, they were nearly court martialed for their efforts.  Two Men Went to War - Wikipedia

[kallend 1,623]

57 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Don,

I see a Door #3)  Do not declare war until you have ( if not already have ) a sufficient military to instantly respond to any situation.  This is a version of your Door #1.

After WW I, the UK & the US reduced their militaries substantially; as did most of the other winning combatants.  IMO the general thinking was that it was the War to End All Wars.  When Churchill began talking about the German re-armament in the mid/late 30's, no one would listen to him.  There was no stomach for more war.

I think that the BEF, going to France to fight the Germans, was an honorable gesture.  As to any military successes, not so much. *  IMO the same thing with the Doolittle Raid on Tokyo.  One substantial benefit of the Doolittle Raid was to show Japan that we could, at a considerable cost, actually strike them at home.

I guess a Door #4 would be to declare war with the condition that you will not do anything until you have a sufficient military.

Jerry Baumchen

*  This also was an honorable gesture.  However, they were nearly court martialed for their efforts.  Two Men Went to War - Wikipedia

So tell us, what do you think the USA should have done in December 1941?  After all, it didn't have sufficient military to do much of anything.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Door #3 would require a country to almost completely revamp its economy to a wartime economy, without actually being at war.  I submit that that would be impossible from a political perspective.  Anyway what would that actually accomplish?  It's not as if the Nazis would have failed to notice the Allied countries suddenly starting to recruit/conscript 10% of their population and train them to fight, or that all the car factories were suddenly churning out tanks, etc.  Similarly Door #4 seems a bit silly, to declare war but announce that you aren't going to do anything until you are completely ramped up to a wartime footing? 

Anyway what set me off about this was your assertion that all the effort and sacrifice of the Allied countries was meaningless because they weren't landing troops on Normandy the same day that war was declared.  To put a personal touch on it, my great-uncle walked with a limp for the rest of his life after some German shrapnel almost removed his leg, my paternal grandfather had nightmares all his life from his experiences fighting in Italy, and one of my early mentors was almost given up for dead on Juno Beach.  I would not want to be the one to tell them their sacrifices were meaningless.

[ryoder 1,384]

Andrei Kozyrev was Boris Yeltsin's Foreign Minister.

He is now retired and lives in Miami.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Kozyrev

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

24 minutes ago, kallend said:

So tell us, what do you think the USA should have done in December 1941?  After all, it didn't have sufficient military to do much of anything.

Hi John,

It was a nice, emotional gesture; which we probably needed.

After Pearl Harbor ( which it was in response ), we did not have the logistics to do much.  It took the massive mfg efforts of this country before we could do much.

My mother was a welder in the ship yards in Portland, OR during WW II.

Jerry Baumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

37 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Door #3 would require a country to almost completely revamp its economy to a wartime economy, without actually being at war.  I submit that that would be impossible from a political perspective.  Anyway what would that actually accomplish?  It's not as if the Nazis would have failed to notice the Allied countries suddenly starting to recruit/conscript 10% of their population and train them to fight, or that all the car factories were suddenly churning out tanks, etc.  Similarly Door #4 seems a bit silly, to declare war but announce that you aren't going to do anything until you are completely ramped up to a wartime footing? 

Anyway what set me off about this was your assertion that all the effort and sacrifice of the Allied countries was meaningless because they weren't landing troops on Normandy the same day that war was declared.  To put a personal touch on it, my great-uncle walked with a limp for the rest of his life after some German shrapnel almost removed his leg, my paternal grandfather had nightmares all his life from his experiences fighting in Italy, and one of my early mentors was almost given up for dead on Juno Beach.  I would not want to be the one to tell them their sacrifices were meaningless.

Hi Don,

My father & my step-father were both participants in WW II.

If you send insufficient forces into combat where they will be decimated; is that a good strategy? *

IMO decisions during war/war-time should not be based upon emotions.

IMO that is why the Allies did not attack from the west until D-Day.  We simply could not have been successful.

I do not know the numbers, but it does seem to me that the BEF during 2 Sep 39 - 31 May 40 was a failure.

The relative losses by the UK military vs the losses by the German military was nowhere near the same.  It was an honorable effort; but, with little success.

Jerry Baumchen

* Based upon my reading, Eisenhower was determined not to lose men at the rate that they were lost in WW I.  He believed that losing armament rather than losing men was the better strategy.  We could build a tank faster than we could build another man.

ETA)  I can still remember, in about the Spring of 1948, waiting at the city bus stop with my mother, and seeing a guy in a suit with only one arm.  I, being only 7 yrs old, asked my mother about him.  She said that he had probably lost it in the war.  I can still envision that moment.

Edited March 11, 2022 by JerryBaumchen

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

54 minutes ago, GeorgiaDon said:

Door #3 would require a country to almost completely revamp its economy to a wartime economy, without actually being at war.  I submit that that would be impossible from a political perspective.  Anyway what would that actually accomplish?  It's not as if the Nazis would have failed to notice the Allied countries suddenly starting to recruit/conscript 10% of their population and train them to fight, or that all the car factories were suddenly churning out tanks, etc.  Similarly Door #4 seems a bit silly, to declare war but announce that you aren't going to do anything until you are completely ramped up to a wartime footing? 

Anyway what set me off about this was your assertion that all the effort and sacrifice of the Allied countries was meaningless because they weren't landing troops on Normandy the same day that war was declared.  To put a personal touch on it, my great-uncle walked with a limp for the rest of his life after some German shrapnel almost removed his leg, my paternal grandfather had nightmares all his life from his experiences fighting in Italy, and one of my early mentors was almost given up for dead on Juno Beach.  I would not want to be the one to tell them their sacrifices were meaningless.

Hi Don,

Re:  Anyway what set me off about this was your assertion that all the effort and sacrifice of the Allied countries was meaningless because they weren't landing troops on Normandy the same day that war was declared.

I never said that.  I do not believe that, as written.

I strongly believe that what the US did in WW II, in both theaters of war, was the right & honorable thing to do.

I do not believe that what NATO ( including the US ) is not doing * regarding Ukraine is the right & honorable thing to 'not do.'

Jerry Baumchen

* Based upon the afternoon news that I am watching right now.

PS)  I do not like war.  I have been fortunate to have never served in combat.  I do believe in war when it is necessary.  Each of us decides 'necessary' for themselves.

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

So tell us, what do you think the USA should have done in December 1941?  After all, it didn't have sufficient military to do much of anything.

To his point, it was doing everything it could do without declaring war - building aircraft and ships, sending troops, food and advisers to support the UK - basically for free, through a program called "lend-lease" (i.e. we will send you whatever you want, pay us back when you can.)  It had a sufficient military to defend the US but not to engage in a global war.

Japan then made the monumental blunder of attacking Pearl Harbor, something that required an armed response from the US.  And once the US took on the Japanese, the Germans came along with the package.  Thus it wasn't really the US's decision any more.  If you're attacked as a country you fight back.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

7 minutes ago, billvon said:

To his point, it was doing everything it could do without declaring war - building aircraft and ships, sending troops, food and advisers to support the UK - basically for free, through a program called "lend-lease" (i.e. we will send you whatever you want, pay us back when you can.)  It had a sufficient military to defend the US but not to engage in a global war.

Japan then made the monumental blunder of attacking Pearl Harbor, something that required an armed response from the US.  And once the US took on the Japanese, the Germans came along with the package.  Thus it wasn't really the US's decision any more.  If you're attacked as a country you fight back.

Hi Bill,

Thank you.

Jerry Baumchen

[yoink 321]

I'm sorry, but these comparisons to WW2 are mostly meaningless, and IMO, distracting from the current conversation. 

Germany was not a nuclear power in WW2. They didn't have the ability to basically end all life on the planet in a fit of pique if they were losing. Yes, there are some lessons we can learn from history, but we shouldn't be constrained by them. While the general topography of the landscape is similar, the detail of the landscape is very, very different. 

Would the declaration of war and immediate response have been different if Germany had possessed 6000 nuclear weapons? Of course it would have been... 

Focus on what the current situation is, not what was done nearly a century ago.

Edited March 12, 2022 by yoink

[JoeWeber 2,299]

6 hours ago, yoink said:

I'm sorry, but these comparisons to WW2 are mostly meaningless, and IMO, distracting from the current conversation. 

Germany was not a nuclear power in WW2. They didn't have the ability to basically end all life on the planet in a fit of pique if they were losing. Yes, there are some lessons we can learn from history, but we shouldn't be constrained by them. While the general topography of the landscape is similar, the detail of the landscape is very, very different. 

Would the declaration of war and immediate response have been different if Germany had possessed 6000 nuclear weapons? Of course it would have been... 

Focus on what the current situation is, not what was done nearly a century ago.

Absolutely. This horror show is it's own thing. I still maintain the best policy is to keep it in Ukraine and make it as drawn out and painful for the Russians as possible. Yes, Ukraine is suffering and yes they will need to give up territory for whatever peace with Russia will look like. Putin will need to walk away with a win, no doubt, and hoping instead for him to be removed is mere wishful thinking. But they'll still be a country, in or out of NATO, and the rest of the world won't be on fire and we can start, finally, to learn how to play the long game against our future enemies.

[Phil1111 910]

6 hours ago, yoink said:

I'm sorry, but these comparisons to WW2 are mostly meaningless, and IMO, distracting from the current conversation. 

Germany was not a nuclear power in WW2. They didn't have the ability to basically end all life on the planet in a fit of pique if they were losing. Yes, there are some lessons we can learn from history, but we shouldn't be constrained by them. While the general topography of the landscape is similar, the detail of the landscape is very, very different. 

Would the declaration of war and immediate response have been different if Germany had possessed 6000 nuclear weapons? Of course it would have been... 

Focus on what the current situation is, not what was done nearly a century ago.

Just because Russia starts to lose, is losing, or lost the "special military action". Doesn't mean that it or Putin would resort to nuclear weapons. Think MAD. There is a reason why nuclear weapons have not been used in Syria,Chechnya, Afghanistan or any other country in which Russians have died.

Putin's current interest in Ukraine doesn't mean he wants to end all life for all Russians for the next 100 years.Do you honestly think the Russian chain of command would allow Putin to launch a nuclear attack on the west? Given the current world political dynamics. Putin is a history buff himself.

[JoeWeber 2,299]

8 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Just because Russia starts to lose, is losing, or lost the "special military action". Doesn't mean that it or Putin would resort to nuclear weapons. Think MAD. There is a reason why nuclear weapons have not been used in Syria,Chechnya, Afghanistan or any other country in which Russians have died.

Putin's current interest in Ukraine doesn't mean he wants to end all life for all Russians for the next 100 years.Do you honestly think the Russian chain of command would allow Putin to launch a nuclear attack on the west? Given the current world political dynamics. Putin is a history buff himself.

I think we're better off saying the "Russians" instead of "Putin". Maybe he is acting all alone here but it would be a mistake to think so. Also, are you certain that a theater nuclear weapon or a neutron bomb would trigger a NATO based nuclear response? Seems to me that slow attrition has less of a chance of triggering such an event than a sudden battlefield reversal with no immediate solution on offer. Awful as it all is I think slow and contained is the best current policy. While we're on the topic, unless all of the 2.5 Million Ukrainians who have fled to Poland are kids, disabled, old or possess some other infirmity that maybe they should be issued war suits and weapons and offered transport to their motherland.

[BIGUN 1,053]

17 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

As regards 'hollow declaration,' look here:  Russia, the US and Britain also signed this document which promised none of these countries would invade Ukraine and respect its sovereignties and existing borders while also giving them political independence.

See Post #633

Morning, Jerry.

The DZ.com attorneys have ruled the Budapest Memorandum as unenforceable, so Russia gets a pass. The good news is Biden said he'd fight WWIII if they go after a NATO country, so a few million displaced Ukraines and those killed so far can rest easy. This war has been categorized as "not our problem."  

[JoeWeber 2,299]

8 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Morning, Jerry.

The DZ.com attorneys have ruled the Budapest Memorandum as unenforceable, so Russia gets a pass. The good news is Biden said he'd fight WWIII if they go after a NATO country, so a few million displaced Ukraines and those killed so far can rest easy. This war has been categorized as "not our problem."  

Keith, with any luck this will end with all of the western world recognizing that it was a problem of our own causing. Neither of us can state with certainty that a wider war fought with US soldiers would or wouldn't mean many more civilian deaths and multiple nations. But I think the chances are good that would be the case. I think that because I think the chances are zero that Russia goes home without something called a victory. The war is 17 days old and thus far a disaster for Russia. Another few weeks of rope-a-dope and just maybe they'll take some things and go away for now. For our part we need to get our petro-shit together and stop giving the worlds wealth to the worlds worst actors. 

[brenthutch 383]

On 3/10/2022 at 11:26 AM, ryoder said:

In 2015 a NATO member state shot down a Russian fighter, and there was no nuclear exchange:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown

In 2018 we killed 100+ Russians and Putin did nothing 

Edited March 12, 2022 by brenthutch

[BIGUN 1,053]

4 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

The war is 17 days old and thus far a disaster for Russia.

Not to mention Ukraine. Joe, I don't think it's any secret that I come from the "punch a bully in the mouth" school of diplomacy. And yes, we do need to get our petro-shit together. Personally, I don't understand why we don't re-open the spigot here in the US instead of talking with Venezuela & SA (IMO, we're just moving the problem across the room). My suspicion is Biden doesn't want to unravel the democratic base when instead it can be a lesson and path on moving forward without fossil fuels.     

[JoeWeber 2,299]

4 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Not to mention Ukraine. Joe, I don't think it's any secret that I come from the "punch a bully in the mouth" school of diplomacy. And yes, we do need to get our petro-shit together. Personally, I don't understand why we don't re-open the spigot here in the US instead of talking with Venezuela & SA (IMO, we're just moving the problem across the room). My suspicion is Biden doesn't want to unravel the democratic base when instead it can be a lesson and path on moving forward without fossil fuels.     

Venezuela has the worlds largest oil reserves and they aren't much more corrupt than Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Russia and so on. I'll be going there in a couple of months if things develop. From what I see they are moving in the right direction. Besides, just what are we holding our noses over? Presidential Candidates that foment insurrection and refuse to accept election results? A huge wealth disparity? Boneheaded legislators? I'm informed that a lot of the real bastards have taken their winnings and run away already. Other wealthy Venezuelans are investing in the country now and it's changing.

I think, taking a longer view, that plucking Venezuela from the Russian sphere (Cuba, too) would be a real game changer in time. I say slap our enemies with our checkbook not punch them in the nose.

[airdvr 197]

38 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

I think we're better off saying the "Russians" instead of "Putin". Maybe he is acting all alone here but it would be a mistake to think so. Also, are you certain that a theater nuclear weapon or a neutron bomb would trigger a NATO based nuclear response? Seems to me that slow attrition has less of a chance of triggering such an event than a sudden battlefield reversal with no immediate solution on offer. Awful as it all is I think slow and contained is the best current policy. While we're on the topic, unless all of the 2.5 Million Ukrainians who have fled to Poland are kids, disabled, old or possess some other infirmity that maybe they should be issued war suits and weapons and offered transport to their motherland.

My understanding is males of "fighting age" are not allowed to leave the country.

I agree with slow and contained as well.  But whatever is painful resistance for Russia will destroy Ukraine.

I'm thinking Putin's credit cards are maxxed out.

[gowlerk 1,912]

59 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Putin's current interest in Ukraine doesn't mean he wants to end all life for all Russians for the next 100 years.

Russia lost control of the Soviet Empire because it was weak and corrupt. Even though it controlled thousands of nukes at the time. It is still weak, corrupt, and poorly governed and not strong enough to take and hold Ukraine. The days of empire are over for all but perhaps China and that is tenuous at best. The Russians do not even have the stomach to cut off the west from its energy supplies because they like the money so much. They will not allow what is left of their nation to be destroyed by initiating WWIII.

[BIGUN 1,053]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Candidates that foment insurrection and refuse to accept election results? A huge wealth disparity? Boneheaded legislators?

We suck less. :)

I think Venezuela is still a high-risk investment. 

[gowlerk 1,912]

20 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Personally, I don't understand why we don't re-open the spigot here in the US instead of talking with Venezuela & SA

Because you don't have such a spigot. 

[Phil1111 910]

47 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Morning, Jerry.

The DZ.com attorneys have ruled the Budapest Memorandum as unenforceable, so Russia gets a pass. The good news is Biden said he'd fight WWIII if they go after a NATO country, so a few million displaced Ukraines and those killed so far can rest easy. This war has been categorized as "not our problem."  

I agree and feel your frustration.

20 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Not to mention Ukraine. Joe, I don't think it's any secret that I come from the "punch a bully in the mouth" school of diplomacy. And yes, we do need to get our petro-shit together. Personally, I don't understand why we don't re-open the spigot here in the US instead of talking with Venezuela & SA (IMO, we're just moving the problem across the room). My suspicion is Biden doesn't want to unravel the democratic base when instead it can be a lesson and path on moving forward without fossil fuels.     

I agree, Biden should say he made a mistake about the XL pipeline. The US should open the taps on drilling. But at the same time go all out to wean itself and others from the shackles of oil.

[Phil1111 910]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Russia lost control of the Soviet Empire because it was weak and corrupt. Even though it controlled thousands of nukes at the time. It is still weak, corrupt, and poorly governed and not strong enough to take and hold Ukraine. The days of empire are over for all but perhaps China and that is tenuous at best. The Russians do not even have the stomach to cut off the west from its energy supplies because they like the money so much. They will not allow what is left of their nation to be destroyed by initiating WWIII.

The corruption of Soviet communism was different from the dictatorship and kleptocracy of the Putin regime. Otherwise I agree.

[gowlerk 1,912]

3 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

I agree, Biden should say he made a mistake about the XL pipeline.

That pipeline is and was mostly a symbol, not a solution.