ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2020 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, August 07, 2014

Failing to note the connection

I thought this passage by Max Hastings about Archduke Franz Ferdinand was interesting for several reasons:
The Archduke’s political and social views were conservative and vigorously expressed. After attending Edward VII’s 1910 funeral in London, he wrote home deploring the boorishness of most of his fellow sovereigns, and the alleged impertinence of some politicians present, notable among them ex-US president Theodore Roosevelt. It is sometimes suggested that Franz Ferdinand was an intelligent man. Even if this was so, like so many royal personages into modern times, he was corrupted by position, which empowered him to express opinions unenlightened even by contemporary standards.

He loathed Hungarians, telling the Kaiser: ‘the so-called noble, gentlemanly Magyar is a most infamous, anti-dynastic, lying, unreliable fellow’. He regarded southern Slavs as sub-humans, referring to the Serbians as ‘those pigs’. He hankered after recovering Lombardy and Venetia, lost to Italy in his lifetime, for the Hapsburg Empire. Visiting Russia in 1891, Franz Ferdinand declared that its autocracy offered ‘an admirable model’. Tsar Nicholas II recoiled from Franz Ferdinand’s intemperance, especially on racial matters. Both the Archduke and his wife were strongly Catholic, favouring Jesuits and professing hostility towards Freemasons, Jews and liberals. Such was Sophie’s religious fervour that in 1901 she led two hundred fashionable women on a Catholic march through Vienna.

The Archduke nonetheless cherished one prudent conviction: while many Austrians, notably including army chief of staff Gen. Conrad von Hötzendorf, detested Russia and welcomed the prospect of a battlefield showdown with the Tsar, Franz Ferdinand dissented. He was determined, he said repeatedly, to avoid a clash of arms. Desiring a ‘concord of emperors’, he wrote: ‘I shall never lead a war against Russia. I shall make sacrifices to avoid it. A war between Austria and Russia would end either with the overthrow of the Romanovs or with the overthrow of the Habsburgs – or perhaps the overthrow of both.’

He once wrote to Berchtold: ‘Excellency! Don’t let yourself be influenced by Conrad – ever! Not an iota of support for any of his yappings at the Emperor! Naturally he wants every possible war, every kind of hooray! rashness that will conquer Serbia and God knows what else … Through war he wants to make up for the mess that’s his responsibility at least in part. Therefore: let’s not play Balkan warriors ourselves. Let’s not stoop to this hooliganism. Let’s stay aloof and watch the scum bash in each other’s skulls. It’d be unforgivable, insane, to start something that would pit us against Russia.’
I find it remarkable that 100 years later, so many people are still more troubled by the idea that one man might consider a group of people to be scum than by the deaths of tens of millions. The notion that progressive politics and equalitarian sensibilities somehow equate to world peace, or even regional peace, simply do not stand up to historical scrutiny.

That "nonetheless" is false. Hastings fails to see the connection between Ferdinand's racial intemperance and his reluctance to go to war, just as today's multiculturalists and diversity advocates fail to see how their policies are leading to bloodshed that may make the trenches of World War I look mild in comparison.

It is the idea of inevitable progress that has reliably led to these massive blood-spillings. One notes that presently, in America, it is the neocons and the left-liberals who are keen to start a war with Russia, ignoring the mistakes made by the archduke's peers a century ago.

Labels: ,

144 Comments:

Anonymous Fran August 07, 2014 1:23 PM  

I'm not sure the Russians are even afraid of the west's rainbow army in the very least.
Sure we have the tech advantage, I suppose but I keep hearing about gens being fired and cutbacks to the military...idk....war with Russia would be a huge mistake.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 1:25 PM  

Really? It's the left-liberals who are ready to start a war?

You can say whatever you want about Pres. Obama, and a lot of it has been said, but unlike the so-called conservatives who preceded him, he hasn't started any new wars, he's backed us out of the wars we were already in, he actively resisted attempts by the neo-cons to drag him into a civil war in Syria, and ignored the false flag events there. In Russia/Ukraine, he's essentially done nothing at all, leaving Putin to do whatever services his interests. You and many others expected Obama to drag us in to African conflicts, which he has also resisted.

This is why you have Neocon's all over the TV talking about the world is falling apart and leadership blah blah blah.

I've seen almost no evidence to suggest it's the left-liberals agitating for war. As far as I can see, it's the right. Pres. Obama has corralled the military wing of the party into sitting down and shutting up. Something no Republican President has ever been able to do.

Blogger Random August 07, 2014 1:27 PM  

like so many royal personages into modern times, he was corrupted by position, which empowered him to express opinions unenlightened even by contemporary standards.

The arrogance of this statement struck me as much as a slap to the face. "unenlightened"?

I'd rather live in a world ruled by 1000 Archdukes than by a mob of progressives screaming curses at anyone who won't bow to the Zeitgeist.

Blogger Random August 07, 2014 1:29 PM  

he hasn't started any new wars

Libya, (almost) Syria, and he surely ordered the coup in Ukraine leading to what amounts to a proxy war there...

Those don't count?

Anonymous Krul August 07, 2014 1:31 PM  

If World War I were a bar fight...

Blogger Anchorman August 07, 2014 1:34 PM  

war with Russia would be a huge mistake.

No doubt, but the average Russian soldier is pretty low quality. They're poorly trained, low morale, and their discipline is not much better than frat boys.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2014 1:37 PM  

As far as I can see, it's the right. Pres. Obama has corralled the military wing of the party into sitting down and shutting up.

Random beat me to it. I think a coup in the Ukraine trumps invading Goathumpistan. And you might want to do a little more homework on the US military in Africa. Just because it's not on the news doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Anonymous VD August 07, 2014 1:38 PM  

They're poorly trained, low morale, and their discipline is not much better than frat boys..

Which is why the highly trained armies of Napoleon and Hitler roundly defeated them, right?

Anonymous Stilicho August 07, 2014 1:39 PM  

he actively resisted attempts by the neo-cons to drag him into a civil war in Syria

Yes, that "red line" was just a clever attempt to avoid getting involved in Syria. How did those Syrian rebels/jihadists get armed and trained again?

Blogger sykes.1 August 07, 2014 1:39 PM  

Our demented, delusional Ruling Class believes their power is so transcendentally overwhelming that Russia must grovel and submit. They were cowed by Operation Barbarossa and won't be cowed now.

Russia has been expanding and modernizing all its weapon systems and training programs. At the same time the West has been disarming. The West's arms are likely still better than Russia's, but there's so little of it, 156 UK tanks hundreds of miles away from Ukraine. Morevover, except for the US, UK and France, all Western militaries are badly trained and led, and most have poor morale.

Yet, our Rulers continue the sanctions escalation, hoping Putin will yield. More likely he will lose his temper and do something rash.

A question: Who is Obama's Conrad? Jarrett?

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2014 1:42 PM  

> ...but unlike the so-called conservatives who preceded him, he hasn't started any new wars.

I seem to remember that this is not in fact the case.

OK, Google is my friend. Obama has sent troops into both Libya and Yemen. He also recently sent troops into Chad.

> ...he's backed us out of the wars we were already in...

Really? Which ones? We're still in Afghanistan and we just sent "advisors" back into Iraq.

Now, dh can start arguing about what is and is not a war if he wants, but as I've noted before, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were declared wars.

> I've seen almost no evidence to suggest it's the left-liberals agitating for war. As far as I can see, it's the right.

And most neocons are neither right wing nor conservative, dh.

Anonymous patrick kelly August 07, 2014 1:44 PM  

I'm absolutely appalled by the voices I hear longing for war with Russia. They really seem willing to risk nuclear war in order to white knight for the Ukrainians and "put Putin in his place". It's quite the surreal nightmare. Somebody please wake me up.

Anonymous 11B August 07, 2014 1:50 PM  

That "nonetheless" is false. Hastings fails to see the connection between Ferdinand's racial intemperance and his reluctance to go to war, ....

That is interesting because during the opposition to the Iraq Attack, several left leaning anti-war groups, e.g. Code Pink, were told not to make common cause with Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, etc. They were told that those guys, especially Buchanan, opposed the war not because they were peaceful pacifists, but because they were racists and didn't want to send whites to die for non-whites.

This really blew their minds because most leftists always liked to say that racists whites just liked to drop bombs on brown people. But since Buchanan, Lind and others objected, it must have been because they were racists and didn't want to nation-build to help those poor non-whites. It's amazing looking at all the mental contortions that leftists go through before they can decide if someone or something is worthy of their support. Rather than align temporarily with people on one issue, they couldn't get past the supposed racism of their potential allies.

Anonymous Gary Johnston August 07, 2014 1:52 PM  

I'm absolutely appalled by the voices I hear longing for war with Russia.

Traitor!

Murica!!

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2014 1:56 PM  

> I'm absolutely appalled by the voices I hear longing for war with Russia.

They're morons who know nothing of history. Which isn't really surprising. History has never been taught well in my lifetime and is barely taught at all any more. And the people who remember the great wars of the 20th century personally have mostly died off.

Even now, our troops are undoubtedly better trained, better equipped, and more experienced than the Russians. That's not enough to overcome the advantages they have in local known terrain, logistics, and the absolutely certainty on their part that they're defending their land against invaders.

Anonymous 11B August 07, 2014 1:59 PM  

No doubt, but the average Russian soldier is pretty low quality. They're poorly trained, low morale, and their discipline is not much better than frat boys.

And you think the US army is that much better? Keep in mind the US army has spent the better part of 10 years as an occupation force fighting goat herders and jihadis. They have revamped much of their equipment to fight such police keeping missions, which would not be effective against a capable conventional foe, especially in that foe's home area. Additionally they have been even more contaminated by the PC police and I imagine their training and standards are woefully low compared to where they were 10,20, 30 years ago. Now they are talking about putting women in the infantry. Good luck with that.

In 2002, the late Colonel David Hackworth wrote a piece on basic training of non combat soldiers at Ft. Jackson, called the "March of the Porcelain Soldiers". If that is how a great many soldiers are trained, good luck fighting a real enemy.

Anonymous fnn August 07, 2014 2:01 PM  

Christians were able to live under Muslim rule for 1,300 years in what is now Iraq and Syria. Then rabid Israel Firsters took over US foreign policy and it was only a short time before Christians were being Holocausted by extremist Muslims who at least sometimes have indisputable links to USG. Not that I think the neocons wanted to kill off all the Christians in the ME, but they seem to have been focused on making the area safe for Israel to the virtual exclusion of other considerations. Essentially the same policy-what is now clearly a program of destabilization and chaos-was continued under Obama. Thus Libya and Syria. Full-blown chaos and rampant mass murder couldn’t be allowed in a country as big and important as Egypt-so it was put back under military rule following the “Arab Spring.”

Anonymous Philalethes August 07, 2014 2:04 PM  

several left leaning anti-war groups...

The total evaporation of the antiwar left (of which I was once a member, half a lifetime ago) since the Messiah's ascension to the Throne has been nothing short of enlightening.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 2:05 PM  

Have the clever central planners in the US asked themselves what China is going to do while NATO is attacking Russia? Just how stupid are these people?

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 2:07 PM  

Libya, (almost) Syria, and he surely ordered the coup in Ukraine leading to what amounts to a proxy war there...

We are in a proxy war in Ukraine?

I'd still be much happier without the CIA and special operations roaming around the world breaking the law but this is a huge improvement in restraining the US. No ground forces invasions, no big lies justifying a massive invasion.

I follow the news in Africa. I am sure we are sending in CIA and/or special forces to chase criminals in Africa. But it's still by far the least aggressive use of the military since at least Carter was president.

Even if it's true the US orchestrated a coup in Ukraine, it's still the right itching for an invasion. It was the right, not the left-liberals, who wanted us not only to bomb Libya, but to put boots on the ground. It was right who were upset that Obama didn't invade Syria and pick sides there. Obama was led right up to an invasion of Syria, and then pulled back. That was a real test of character and in my view he passed.

I am not going to say I am thrilled but there is almost no evidence that the left-liberals are pushing us towards war.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 2:09 PM  

Yes, that "red line" was just a clever attempt to avoid getting involved in Syria. How did those Syrian rebels/jihadists get armed and trained again?

I disagree with arming anyone who isn't American, however, even if true, it's 100 times better to have Syrian rebels fighting and dying with American weapons than it is to have Americans fighting and dying with American weapons.

The anti-war left evaporated.. because we aren't fighting any new wars, we aren't expanding the military, and it's unlikely that Obama is going to trump up a war and invade some middle-east parking lot anytime soon.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 2:11 PM  

"I am not going to say I am thrilled but there is almost no evidence that the left-liberals are pushing us towards war."

This is wrong. The most jingoistic statements have been coming from people like Obama, Biden, Hillary, and Feinstein. Nothing that has come from the right compares.

Anonymous Gary Johnston August 07, 2014 2:12 PM  

The total evaporation of the antiwar left (of which I was once a member, half a lifetime ago) since the Messiah's ascension to the Throne has been nothing short of enlightening.

To her credit (and I'm not a huge fan of hers), Cindy Sheehan is still toeing the line to this day, but is now completely ignored by the MSM, due to said ascension. Got to give her props on that...

Anonymous 11B August 07, 2014 2:13 PM  

war with Russia would be a huge mistake

What concerns me is that our side sees Ukraine as part of a game while the Russians see what is happening there as an existential threat to them. At this point saner heads should prevail. If Ukraine is indeed that important to the USA, then by all means proceed. But I doubt Ukraine is as important to the USA as it is to Russia, and we should be prepared for them to fight accordingly. They might not have the shiniest toys, but history shows they fight well when they perceive their survival at stake.

Meanwhile for all of you who are itching to deploy our military to some hot spot to protect America, I hear along our Southern Border...

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 2:16 PM  

And most neocons are neither right wing nor conservative, dh.
I trust people's self-identifications.

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be much happier if Obama simply put every American on a plane and ended it that way. Truly.

Despite that failure, we are nearly completely out of Iraq, removing almost every combat troop. In Afghanistan, I can't find a current number, but we went from over 100,000 in country when Obama took office, to apparently between 6000 and 24000 right now.

Likewise, in Libya, special forces and CIA invaded, and apparently the same thing in Syria.

Again I'd be much happier if the number was 0. Actually, my main barometer is how pissed of the Neocon's are. If they are at boiling point, which they are right now, that makes me inherently happier and indicates Obama is doing the right thing.

The actions Obama has taken have been mostly to placate the right. He has completely ignored the left's call to put troops in to "bring back our girls", sending instead DOJ and military support staff instead.

Anonymous bob k. mando August 07, 2014 2:16 PM  

dh
he actively resisted attempts by the neo-cons to drag him into a civil war in Syria


Stilicho August 07, 2014 1:39 PM
Yes, that "red line" was just a clever attempt to avoid getting involved in Syria. How did those Syrian rebels/jihadists get armed and trained again?



this.

either somebody is spoofing dh's handle or dh is trolling us.

there's no way any sane person can say that Obama didn't do everything he could, up to AND INCLUDING falsifying missile attacks to try to get us into the Syria conflict.

his failure to accomplish this was due to Repugs ( discounting that he's a catspaw for Putin ) standing up and pointing out that all data indicated that the gassing had been done by the Islamist revolutionaries.



Anonymous gs August 07, 2014 2:17 PM  

"It was the right, not the left-liberals, who wanted us not only to bomb Libya, but to put boots on the ground."

That's false, at best it was neocons which means the left. Hello Obozo doesn't do what the right wants. He was commander-in-chief during Libya, try again.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 2:17 PM  

"Meanwhile for all of you who are itching to deploy our military to some hot spot to protect America, I hear along our Southern Border..."

No kidding. We're being invaded, so let's get involved in a conflict half way around the world.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 2:18 PM  

This is wrong. The most jingoistic statements have been coming from people like Obama, Biden, Hillary, and Feinstein. Nothing that has come from the right compares.

Ignoring the fact that talk is not action, you have the Darth Lord himself saying his biggest regret from the Iraq invasion was not also invading Iran at the same time. This was just a few weeks ago.

I mean honestly, this isn't credible. You have got Mad Dog McCain urging us to bomb everywhere and invade half the world, you've got the right wing Russia-phobes begging us to invade Russia for goodness sake.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner August 07, 2014 2:21 PM  

Neocons and Liberals deserve a bugle and a drum, then a firm bayonet push from behind to the front lines of their wars.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 2:22 PM  

his failure to accomplish this was due to Repugs ( discounting that he's a catspaw for Putin ) standing up and pointing out that all data indicated that the gassing had been done by the Islamist revolutionaries.

I will go back and re-read everything I read about Syria, but this does not comport with what happened with Syria in my recollection. Obama was literally hours from pulling the trigger for widespread bombing and troops on the ground. And he pulled back. Sen. Graham and Sen. McCain both went ballistic, and accused Obama of being pro-Russia by not taking out Assad.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 2:22 PM  

That's false, at best it was neocons which means the left. Hello Obozo doesn't do what the right wants. He was commander-in-chief during Libya, try again.

What exactly do you think happened in Libya?

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2014 2:23 PM  

> I trust people's self-identifications.

You can afford to do that on the left, dh. You can't on the right.

> Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be much happier if Obama simply put every American on a plane and ended it that way. Truly.

You've been here long enough to know that most of us agree.

> Likewise, in Libya, special forces and CIA invaded, and apparently the same thing in Syria.

That's still as much of a "war" as Afghanistan and Iraq, dh. If all you're going to call things is "military actions", then they're all the same. That's why I make such a big deal of the fact that we're not "at war".

Now, I don't disagree with you that a limited involvement is far better than a full scale one. But I think you're giving Obama far too much credit there. We're simply spread too thin to allow much large scale involvement.

Anonymous Alexander August 07, 2014 2:28 PM  

Now hold on a minute,

I have it on good authority that the right-wing in America has become a bunch of treasonous Putin-philes who refuse to consider efforts against Russia because they hate they black president and they hate the gays.

The right can't simultaneously be sniffing Putin's jockstrap and demanding war with Russia.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2014 2:30 PM  

> The right can't simultaneously be sniffing Putin's jockstrap and demanding war with Russia.

They can to a liberal. No one has ever correctly accused them of being logically consistent.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 2:30 PM  

"Ignoring the fact that talk is not action, you have the Darth Lord himself saying his biggest regret from the Iraq invasion was not also invading Iran at the same time. This was just a few weeks ago."

So you're saying that the right is morally responsible for urging war in Ukraine today because a former Vice President says he wishes he had invaded Iran more than 10 years ago?

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 2:32 PM  

"We're simply spread too thin to allow much large scale involvement."

And too friggin' broke.

Anonymous fnn August 07, 2014 2:39 PM  

You can afford to do that on the left, dh. You can't on the right.

There's a long history of leftists masquerading as conservatives. McCain is the most obvious recent example.

Anonymous Salt August 07, 2014 2:43 PM  

Meanwhile for all of you who are itching to deploy our military to some hot spot to protect America, I hear along our Southern Border...

No way we can defend that. Supply lines, troop transport and all. Hell, have been easier for the Japs to invade the west coast than us defend the southern border.

Anonymous RedJack August 07, 2014 2:47 PM  

dh,

The simply fact is both sides are pushing for armed conflicts that reflect their issues. Obama has been arming and sending "advisers" to the various hot spots mentioned. That doesn't even count the various merc companies that both political parties have used to implement "change".

Personally, no more use of American or American funded arms unless an explicit declaration of war. Then we go in a pull a Sherman's March.

But I am a barbarian at heart.

Anonymous FP August 07, 2014 2:52 PM  

dh said: "he hasn't started any new wars, he's backed us out of the wars we were already in, he actively resisted attempts by the neo-cons to drag him into a civil war in Syria,"

My days of taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

"We are in a proxy war in Ukraine?"

Well, economic certainly. Apparently Putin has now blocked agro imports from the US/Canada/Europe in retaliation for their sanctions (thanks Obama for raising the value of my saiga btw). US Farmer groups and the Feds are now "disappointed". You have Joe Biden's kid now on the board of a Ukranian natural gas company too.

Anonymous FP August 07, 2014 2:58 PM  

"That's still as much of a "war" as Afghanistan and Iraq, dh. If all you're going to call things is "military actions", then they're all the same. That's why I make such a big deal of the fact that we're not "at war"."

Kinetic Actions is the new hip term.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 3:00 PM  

FP--

I agree that it's an economic stand-off, but it's still not military action. If that changes, all apologies, but I don't see it in the cards.

Redjack and a few others--

Yes, I agree that we are broke, but we almost as broke 10 years ago and that didn't stop previous administrations from borrowing and printing more money, and invading two countries.

I fully understand the US making war via the CIA, special forces, advisors, etc. I dont think there is much disagreement on that front.

I would say, however, Reagan used the military to invade and occupy, George HW Bush used the military to invade and occupy (briefly), Clinton used the military to invade and occupy, George W Bush used the military to invade and occupy.

Is the same true for Obama? I don't think so.

It is manifestly clear that Obama has gone all in on drone-warfare, and continued the policies of using the CIA to instigate and destabilize foreign powers that we are at odds with.

But none of that supports VD's claim that it's the left-liberals pushing war in Russia. I don't see any support for it on the left. I see that support coming soley from the whacko right.

Anonymous 11B August 07, 2014 3:01 PM  

The people pushing for intervention around the world are neocons from the GOP and neoliberals from the democrats. In most cases neocons and neolibs will support using troops overseas even if the other party is in the White House. While most regular conservatives and liberals will only jump on board and support an intervention if their guy is in the White House.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 3:02 PM  

"That's still as much of a "war" as Afghanistan and Iraq, dh. If all you're going to call things is "military actions", then they're all the same. That's why I make such a big deal of the fact that we're not "at war"."

I don't totally disagree with you. The different really is only for how long. Iraq and Afganistan are 10+ year engagements. Bombing Libya was a few weeks. That is the difference.

I really see it is an invasion and occupation, versus bombing/CIA/etc. The latter has a sad long precedent going back as long as the CIA has been an organization.

If I was going to go full-liberal, I would say that anytime we violate the sovereignty of a foreign power we have made war upon them. If that is the standard, we are at war with most the world, including Germany and the UK.

Anonymous Stilicho August 07, 2014 3:08 PM  

The anti-war left evaporated.. because we aren't fighting any new wars, we aren't expanding the military, and it's unlikely that Obama is going to trump up a war and invade some middle-east parking lot anytime soon.

No, the anti-war left evaporated because their guy is now prosecuting the wars. I note that you carefully word your assertion to limit it to "new" wars. Who needs new wars when just continuing Bush 43's policies is enough. If the anti-war left were truly anti-war, they would be up in arms about our continued war in Afghanistan, the re-escalation in Iraq, interfering in Libya, the coup in Ukraine, pounding the war drum with Russia, the continuation of the "war against terror" around the world, after all, he isn't known as "President Drone" for nothing. Instead, the left is mostly silent because their guy is prosecuting the various wars. Those that aren't protesting Obama never opposed war, just Bush.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 3:10 PM  

"I see that support coming soley from the whacko right."

Wrong.
Feinstein: US Back in a Cold War With Russia

Biden Warns Russia: U.S. Will Defend Allies

Hillary Clinton Compares Putin's Ukraine Strategy To Adolf Hitler's In Nazi Germany: Report

Anonymous paradox August 07, 2014 3:14 PM  

Alexandr Dugin sums up US foreign policy nicely...

1) Creating an American Empire strictu sensu with a consolidated technically and socially developed central area (Imperial Core) while the outer spaces would keep divided and fragmentized in the state of permanent unrest (near the chaos); it seems the neo-cons are in favor of such a pattern.

2) Creating multilateral unipolarity where the USA would cooperate with other friendly powers (Canada, Europe, Australia, Japan, Israel – possibly other countries) in solving the regional problems and making pressure on the «rogue countries» (Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Northern Korea) or on the hesitating counties striving to assure their own regional independence (China, Russia and so on); it seems that democrats and Obama are inclined to do so;

3) Promoting accelerated globalization with the creation of World Government and swift desovereignization of the National States in favor of creation of United States of the World ruled by the global elite on the legal terms (that is the CFR project represented by the strategy of George Soros and his foundations; the colored revolutions are viewed here as the most effective weapon destabilizing and finally destroying States).

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 3:18 PM  

Noah, on what planet are any of those articles showing left-wing support for attacking Russia?

Feinstein:

"Feinstein said she opposes Republican calls to arm the Ukrainians, as they have been requesting for months, because she thinks the shooting shows that neither side needs to be in possession of such weapons.

"I'm opposed to giving this kind of equipment to anybody," she said.


She doesn't even want to get into a proxy war, let alone a real war.

Biden:

""Russia cannot escape the fact that the world is changing and rejecting outright their behavior," Biden said, after meeting in Vilnius with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite and Latvian President Andris Berzins."

Where he is advocating for war against Russia? This is political kumbya, the "world" rejects Russia behaviour. By the way, this was before Crimea was annexed. Obviously we did not invade Russia as a result.

"“Now if this sounds familiar, it’s what Hitler did back in the 30s,” Clinton reportedly said, referring to Putin's plan to issue Russian citizenship to those in Ukraine's Crimean region. “All the Germans that were ... the ethnic Germans, the Germans by ancestry who were in places like Czechoslovakia and Romania and other places, Hitler kept saying they’re not being treated right. I must go and protect my people and that’s what’s gotten everybody so nervous.”"

That's what Clinton said (which is factually accurate, I think). Where does she call for war?

Noah, let's see some leftists/liberals/Democrats calling for war with Russia. Or anything other than what we are doing.

Anonymous ENthePeasant August 07, 2014 3:18 PM  

Col. Douglas MacGregor used to warn anyone who would listen that fighting Arabs was easy. No Western nation has ever had trouble with Arabs...and it leads all armies, politicians and citizens into a false sense of what's possible and an inflated belief in the value of Marshall enterprises.

Anonymous ENthePeasant August 07, 2014 3:25 PM  

BTW, I don't often lick VD's balls, but just this once... this some great pieces of truth.

"That "nonetheless" is false. Hastings fails to see the connection between Ferdinand's racial intemperance and his reluctance to go to war, just as today's multiculturalists and diversity advocates fail to see how their policies are leading to bloodshed that may make the trenches of World War I look mild in comparison."

Anonymous gs August 07, 2014 3:25 PM  

"What exactly do you think happened in Libya?"

A huge mess where there was none.

Anonymous Basileus August 07, 2014 3:26 PM  

Speaking of Franz Ferdinand, I'm just about finished with Chris Clark's The Sleepwakers, a magisterial history of the run-up to WWI. The Archduke may have thought poorly of the Magyars, but he absolutely understood that the Empire couldn't last as a dual monarchy with the germans and the Magyars lording it over the other nations of the Empire. Likely the Archduke would have elevated the Croats to the status of Kingdom, which is in large part why Tisza, the Hungarian Prime Minister was not greatly perturbed when Ferdinand was assasinated. Elevating the Slavs to the status of a Kingdom would have destroyed the Serb dream of creating a greater Serbia and would have greatly undermined Serb claims to being the liberators of the south slavs.

Phenomenal book. Clark makes an iron clad case for the French and Russians being the bad guys.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 3:26 PM  

Stil--

I note that you carefully word your assertion to limit it to "new" wars. Who needs new wars when just continuing Bush 43's policies is enough.

This is not factually accurate. At the end of the Bush administration, they were still trying to get a long-term deal to stay in Iraq, which Obama abandoned, and then withdraw from Iraq. His GOP opponents promised to re-invade Iraq if elected.

In Afganistan, Obama has drawn down troops and stated to be out at the end of this year (2014). I suspect that will fail but we are down to apparently under 25k troops there.

If the anti-war left were truly anti-war, they would be up in arms about our continued war in Afghanistan, the re-escalation in Iraq, interfering in Libya, the coup in Ukraine, pounding the war drum with Russia, the continuation of the "war against terror" around the world,

The hardcode anti-war left is. Hang out around green's and the Noam Chomsky set and you will find those, especially the drone warfare, to be huge issues. The majority of the anti-war left, however, finds them to be different from launching invasions of foreign countries.

after all, he isn't known as "President Drone" for nothing. Instead, the left is mostly silent because their guy is prosecuting the various wars. Those that aren't protesting Obama never opposed war, just Bush.

I don't disagree that a huge chunk of the anti-war left was motivated by being against Bush. But that doesn't mean they were wrong.

I think the rest of the difference were people who saw Iraq as the next Vietnam (correctly). Futile, expensive, deadly and predicated on lies.

Obama has proposed nothing even remotely as widespread as Bush. The run up to Iraq lasted nearly a year, involved an epic propaganda effort, and chilling efforts to suppress opposition in Congress.

Clearly Obama's drone problem is a huge threat to liberty. But the bar is set so low thanks to the GOP and Bush that he looks great in comparison.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 3:32 PM  

"Noah, let's see some leftists/liberals/Democrats calling for war with Russia. Or anything other than what we are doing."

Nice strawman, dh. Please point out where I claimed that leftists are overtly calling for war.

But I do expect they'll get around to it. Calls for war don't just come out of nowhere. They build gradually from the kind of inflammatory rhetoric I just linked to. Feinstein, Hillary, Biden, Obama -- all of them are making veiled threats. And let's not forget that it is Obama himself who is responsible for the escalating sanctions, which are so often a prelude to war.

Anonymous Phillyastro August 07, 2014 3:33 PM  

@fnn

Please look up and study the Assyrian massacres of the 19th and 20th Centuries prior to the existence of Israel.

Anonymous Dumb founded August 07, 2014 3:34 PM  

That the world entered into the mayhem and madness of World War I from such a seemingly trivial incident has added to a generally accepted conclusion that the whole shooting match between 1914 and 1919 was a pointless fiasco.
In Britain today, there is a widespread belief that the war was so horrendous that the merits of the rival belligerents’ causes scarcely matter — the Blackadder take on history, if you like.
To me, this seems mistaken. The fact is that the history of World War I was hijacked afterwards by those intent only on criticising it. Foremost among these was the influential British economist John Maynard Keynes.
An impassioned German sympathiser, he castigated the supposed injustice and folly of the 1919 Versailles peace treaty, without offering a moment’s speculation about what sort of peace Europe would have had if a victorious Germany under its unpredictable Kaiser had been making it.


Indeed. We have had such constant peace and prosperity for everyone since the glorious victory over the Germans and their unpredictable Kaiser.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2414474/Max-Hastings-Archduke-Franz-Ferdinand-Duchess-Sophie-Royal-human-story-WW1.html#ixzz39jiq1Yf0

Blogger Laguna Beach Fogey August 07, 2014 3:39 PM  

Excellent, Vox. Sounds like my sort of chap.

Anonymous Phillyastro August 07, 2014 3:39 PM  

@dh

Obama simply replaced the US military with mercenaries and invaded more countries and toppled more leaders than Bush.

Pro: No loss of US casualities (for now)
Con: The mercenaries we arm were responsible for 9/11

Anonymous GreyS August 07, 2014 3:48 PM  

“…The Political Order should keep its place as the outgrowth of the Social and not try to re-shape the Social to its own taste. The tendency everywhere is to make the Political Order and the Social identical—the two are becoming one, and the one is Political. The State is spreading over into Society, establishing the scale of values by which Society should live, taking over functions which belong to man’s personality. Educators are increasingly functionaries of the State rather than that of Society, and are talking about ‘the kind of citizens the State wants’ when in the right order we should be striving for the kind of State the citizens want. What all this means is that the order of Compulsion is spreading into the field of Freedom; as one grows the other must shrink. This spread is the main social and political fact of the day. It is essential that we understand it.”
—Frank Sheed "Society and Sanity" (1953)

Anonymous fnn August 07, 2014 3:48 PM  

Please look up and study the Assyrian massacres of the 19th and 20th Centuries prior to the existence of Israel.

I knew about them-but this time it looks like the end. Assyrians were in no danger of extinction under Saddam Hussein.

Anonymous Anonymous August 07, 2014 3:52 PM  

No, the anti-war left evaporated because their guy is now prosecuting the wars.

Just as it evaporated for the eight years between Clinton's inauguration and Bush's. When Clinton was lobbing the occasional cruise missile into Iraq or bombing aspirin factories to get the news away from his pants, I remember one show managed to scrape together about a half-dozen notable protesters to interview. For some reason, I remember Venus from WKRP being one of them. That was the best they could do, because the rest of the anti-war left was on vacation.

Blogger Anchorman August 07, 2014 3:53 PM  

Which is why the highly trained armies of Napoleon and Hitler roundly defeated them, right?

I'm really just talking about the ones I've met, not historical soldiers. They really don't invest in training like US forces. They never grasped or appreciated the non-commissioned officer concept, leaving their forces very dependent on the officers and practically crippled when decapitated. The lack of pride in their enlisted showed. There wasn't real career progression and, with heavy turnover, discipline really suffered. I heard they made changes to address the problems, but haven't been witness to the success or failure (I'm solely stateside now).

That said, Russian wars without a hefty Russian body count are rare, aren't they?

Blogger Bogey August 07, 2014 3:56 PM  

Neither have I heard of any neo-cons or liberals on the radio or TV "keen to start a war with Russia". Furthermore Vladamir Putin is the provocateur here not the U.S. http://goo.gl/Jn0Bcn. And really what else could you expect from KGB scum?

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 3:59 PM  

"That said, Russian wars without a hefty Russian body count are rare, aren't they?"

They seemed to do pretty well in the Crimea earlier this year.

Blogger Anchorman August 07, 2014 4:01 PM  

And you think the US army is that much better (than Russia's)?

We are nowhere near where we were a decade ago. But the US military of 2003 (thereabouts) was a world-crushing force. The wars, attrition, gutting of training and repai/replace budgets have had a major and negative affect.

That said, the Russians were absolutely terrible. There's no comparison. I don't have much respect for the Bundeswehr, but even they looked worlds better than the Russians I saw.

Your mileage may vary. Personally, I think they're 20 years from truly rivaling the US as a ground force. That would take concerted effort on their part and continuing decline on our part. There's just no professional development or knowledge retention.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 4:02 PM  

Noah--

I wrote:

"But none of that supports VD's claim that it's the left-liberals pushing war in Russia. I don't see any support for it on the left. I see that support coming soley from the whacko right."

You said this was wrong, and then posted 3 URLs which in no way show any leftist supporting or pushing war with Russia. One the articles was before the annexation of Crimea.

It's really not a strawman. If there are left-liberals pushing for with Russia, they are doing a super top-secret job at hiding it. The only people I have heard who really are pushing it the right wing and neo-con's who want Russia to be our number #1 enemy again.

Blogger Anchorman August 07, 2014 4:05 PM  

They seemed to do pretty well in the Crimea earlier this year.

And they stretched their logistics chain to a breaking point. Even that close to home.

Anonymous Porky August 07, 2014 4:09 PM  

I find it remarkable that 100 years later, so many people are still more troubled by the idea that one man might consider a group of people to be scum than by the deaths of tens of millions.

The "troubled by the idea" stuff you talk about is just window dressing. Money and power drive these people.

The President is vocally in support of gay marriage, yet yesterday he was dining with a man who threatened to behead gays. Why? Because 14 Billion dollars.

Joe Biden speaks harshly about the Russians because his son is set to make millions in the Ukraine.

As always, watch what progressives do, not what they say....and follow the money.

Blogger Mark Andrew Edwards August 07, 2014 4:12 PM  

I like where RedJack’s head is at.

I think there is a time and place for war and I think a militarily strong America is good for the world and good for us. With the military we have right now, I don’t think we should be taking on any new commitments. But I also think we need to gun-up. War is coming, I’m afraid. I’m not sure where, be it the mid-east or East Asia or Eastern Europe, but the clouds are gathering.

Anyway, back on topic, was this quote from Hasting’s book “Catastrophe”? I may have to pick that up, if the Kindle price drops. I was re-reading the Guns of August again early this year. It has its flaws but it did a pretty good job of capturing the mood of the nations at the time. A lot of blame to go around. Especially on the part of the Progressives back then. I seem to recall how the hard left was pantingly in favor of war.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2014 4:13 PM  

> If there are left-liberals pushing for with Russia, they are doing a super top-secret job at hiding it

And yet they're pushing policies and actions that will inevitably lead to a military confrontation. So. are they merely incompetent or is that their goal?

> The only people I have heard who really are pushing it the right wing and neo-con's who want Russia to be our number #1 enemy again.

The neo-con's, yes. Who else on the right has been pushing for it? I haven't heard anyone, but I haven't been following the news all that much.

Anonymous cheddarman August 07, 2014 4:20 PM  

"How will the banksters profit from either war or no war with Russia? " is the question we should be asking ourselves and each other.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell August 07, 2014 4:22 PM  

Obama would have taken us into Syria without the intervention of a bipartisan (rarely a good thing) opposition. This action would start like Libya and either fail and turn into a ground operation or be abandoned.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 4:24 PM  

There's nothing top secret about veiled threats, dh, which is what Biden, Obama, Feinstein, and Hillary have been doing. (Sure, Feinstein doesn't want non-state actors to be armed: no surprise there. And I have no doubt that her opposition to giving effective implements of war to "anyone" mysteriously vanishes insofar as the state of Israel is concerned.)

Just as Vox said -- it's the neocons and left-liberals who are pushing for war against Russia. They are the ones piling on sanctions and vilifying Russia. The most prominent people on the right, like Pat Buchanan and the Pauls, are solidly against war.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 4:35 PM  

J.D.

Come now, "inevitably" lead to a military confrontation is a huge, huge, leap of faith. Economic sanctions and a few barely harsh words do not lead two big countries to invade each other. It could be the very early stages of a war, but it is much more likely to be nothing.

The neo-con's, yes. Who else on the right has been pushing for it? I haven't heard anyone, but I haven't been following the news all that much.

Basically nobody. Only a few neo-con idiots really want a confrontation with Russia.\

There's nothing top secret about veiled threats, dh, which is what Biden, Obama, Feinstein, and Hillary have been doing

Yes, it is. That's what veiled means. Opaque. Top secret.

What you are claiming is that Feinstein, who not only didn't say she wants to go to war with Russia, but also did not even want to arm the people who are already fighting Russia, really wants Russia to read her statements as a threat of war. Likewise with Biden and Clinton. It's a big stretch.

I just don't see. There is hardly an elected official in the country stupid enough to want a war with Russia over.. Ukraine? Gas? Who knows.

Anonymous Anonymous August 07, 2014 4:42 PM  

Owen, have you ever read John H. Poole? Phantom Soldier and the Tiger's Way are essential. Have you ever read German accounts of the Eastern front, where Russian soldiers ALWAYS infiltrated German lines? And not just because the lines were vast, but because they were good. Further, any objective study of Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan would conclude that at the small-unit level, the US is way below par. Time after time US soldiers stumbled into an ambush due to bad intel, poor judgement, and/or tactical ignorance, and relied on BILLIONS OF DOLLARS worth of steel and oil to get them out. What will Americans do in the next when inflicting major defeats on US forces is laughably easy, and to make things worse, the US has had its logistical tail cut off? Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Anonymous Remir August 07, 2014 4:55 PM  

"But now that he has been in power for more than 14 years and is planning to stay forever, what should the United States do? Bombing Moscow does not seem to be an option. But helping the Russian opposition in the same committed, involved, and even meddling manner as the U.S. once helped the Serbian opposition should be."

"Everyone wants the suns of August. Summer vacations rule. Nobody wants the guns — and damn the bigger guns appeasement may bring."

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2014 5:01 PM  

> Come now, "inevitably" lead to a military confrontation is a huge, huge, leap of faith.

Faith? No. I'm a bit older than you, dh, and I've seen this too many times before. The patterns are easy to recognize with experience. But you are correct and inevitably is an overstatement.

> Basically nobody. Only a few neo-con idiots really want a confrontation with Russia.

OK. So no one on the traditional right is actually calling for war. And while I can't speak for Vox, I'll grant that no one on the liberal left is actually calling for war. They are sabre rattling, but that's hardly the same thing, and I expect the right would be doing the same thing under the circumstances. Only the neo-cons are actually pushing for military conflict.

So, why are we arguing again? :)

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 5:01 PM  

That's what veiled means. Opaque. Top secret.

"Veiled" means "thinly disguised." It does not mean "opaque" and most definitely does not mean "top secret."

What you are claiming is that Feinstein, who not only didn't say she wants to go to war with Russia, but also did not even want to arm the people who are already fighting Russia, really wants Russia to read her statements as a threat of war. Likewise with Biden and Clinton. It's a big stretch.

It isn't a stretch when you read statements like these:

Feinstein: "it's a horrendous mistake to make. It points out the futility of what's happening in the Ukraine, because there will be repercussions from this."

Feinstein: "I think the world has to rise up and say, we've had enough of this..."

And, do you believe the Huffington Post was mis-characterizing Biden when it reported, "Biden's comments came at the close of a two-day trip to Lithuania and Poland with a two-pronged theme: Sending a stern message to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the U.S. won't abide Russian intervention in Ukraine, and reassuring fretful NATO allies that the U.S. and others will come to their defense if necessary."

Repercussions... rise up... won't abide. It requires huge doses of deliberate obtuseness and wishful thinking not to see the threats inherent in these statements.

Anonymous alexander August 07, 2014 5:06 PM  

Otoh, if one man can provide huge doses of obtuseness, its biden.

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 5:07 PM  

In fairness, dh, I doubt these people actually want war. They are simply insisting that Russia back down in the face of US threats. And by so insisting, they are pushing us towards war.

Blogger Anchorman August 07, 2014 5:17 PM  

aaron,
Have any of those eagle eye armchair types scrutinized the modern Russian military? If a foreign military, like Russia, faced the intense scrutiny the US forces face from armchair types, it might only embolden the dunderheads in DC.

Are you honestly suggesting the US military was not on par with the Iraq military it crushed in 1990? 2003? Do you really mean to imply that the modern Russian military could take the US military to task?

Everyone keeps pointing back to WWII. I'm not sure why. I have consistently stated I am talking about the modern, broke-dick Russian military. It's always easy money to pump out a book that says the US isn't great at X. It's eaten up. Put other nations under the same microscope and you realize how wide the gap truly is.

The Russians got their ass handed to them by the Chechnyans in 1994. They succeeded in 1999 by using a scorched earth policy. Even then, they still created thousands of militants who killed hundreds of Russians in terrorist attacks. How many thousands upon thousands did the Russians lose fighting a backward nation of a little over a million, close to their homeland, and without the international jihad network pumping shit-tons of millions toward the terrorists?

If you still think they're a viable military, I don't know what to tell you.

If you really think they are even remotely close to what the US can field, you haven't seriously studied them.

Still, if all you want to do is say, "The US isn't so great. In fact, they suck" have at it. All I suggest it putting any other military under the same microscope and then you'll realize that we fixate on a broken arm when others have sucking chest wounds.

Anonymous patrick kelly August 07, 2014 5:19 PM  

@Remir:

That first article is a fine specimen of warmongering propaganda, and the second is an example of missing the obvious while it's biting you in the ass.

Blogger Anchorman August 07, 2014 5:21 PM  

aaron,
Let's also ensure we can differentiate between the successes of units and poorly designed strategery from DC. The military can lay waste to others and then DC can mire it in a swamp for a decade, tie their hands with suicidal Rules of Engagement, and slash budgets for resupply and repair operations.

Pound for pound, we built an army that rivals the most successful in history. And then we tied its hands.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2014 5:23 PM  

> Do you really mean to imply that the modern Russian military could take the US military to task?

On their own terrain, with strained logistics on the part of the US, and secure in the knowledge that it was their own land they were defending? Yes. We're good, but we're not supermen. And our leadership hasn't fought a real war in over 60 years, and (as they routinely demonstrate) has little idea how to do so.

Blogger Jew613 August 07, 2014 5:25 PM  

Franz Ferdinand didn't like various peoples, so what? He always treated all of his subjects well and worked for the welfare of the Austrio-Hungarian empire. That is how a future sovereign should act. Max Hastings judges the Prince's personal attitude even though they did not effect his performance of his duties.

The Prince also clearly had more sense then the modern elite since he was not interested in going to war with Russia. A clearly mad prospect seeing as how its worked out in the past.

I would like to know from anyone who has served in the US military or any of the United States's European Allies, are the respective militaries able to operate for sustained periods in a winter as bitter as Russia's?

Anonymous Doppelganger August 07, 2014 5:35 PM  

War? Did someone mention war?

http://mobilizer.instapaper.com/m?u=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/world/middleeast/obama-weighs-military-strikes-to-aid-trapped-iraqis-officials-say.html

Anonymous automatthew August 07, 2014 5:37 PM  

dh: "I trust people's self-identifications." And: "Ignoring the fact that talk is not action…"

In a nutshell, this is why the otherwise redoubtable dh is still a liberal. Because feels.

Blogger Matamoros August 07, 2014 5:40 PM  

aaron: Have you ever read German accounts of the Eastern front, where Russian soldiers ALWAYS infiltrated German lines? And not just because the lines were vast, but because they were good.

Nah, any lines can be infiltrated.

The German strategy was to let the Russians attack and get behind the fortresses, and then the super-units to wipe them out.

Worked over and over - 30 million Russian casualties. It was a near run thing as to whom would win. The only reason the Soviets "won" was because of Lendlease and the Western Front.

Real John Mosier, Hitler vs. Stalin 1941-1945, and Viktor Suvorov, Icebreaker.

Anonymous automatthew August 07, 2014 5:45 PM  

OT: quoth the Yankee policeman, "Because the president decimated our Constitution, then we don’t have to."

Anonymous cheddarman August 07, 2014 6:17 PM  

I would like to know from anyone who has served in the US military or any of the United States's European Allies, are the respective militaries able to operate for sustained periods in a winter as bitter as Russia's? - Jew316

Probably not, NATO was formed for the defense of formerly non-communist Europe.
I doubt the major weapons systems that NATO relies upon are designed to work in that sort of cold weather. I would assume that it can be winterized to a degree, but does not have same same performance in bitterly cold weather as Russian gear.

Anonymous Stg58/Animal Mother August 07, 2014 6:26 PM  

That Sophie sounds like she was the life of the party.

Blogger Anchorman August 07, 2014 6:51 PM  

with strained logistics on the part of the US,

Kind of a specialty of mine.

Russia's navy wouldn't last and our air power would quickly overwhelm their pilots.

Do I recognize the serious problems our military faces? Absolutely. The QDR still paints a far too rosy picture. Heck, we're still not sure if we can field (refit, really) the 11th carrier we're required to send to sea by law - not because of fleet readiness, but because of money. Yes, we actually have a law that says we must have 11 carriers. Strange, I know. Anyway, our Army is facing massive cuts, due to sequestration, and the idea of two front wars is a pipe dream. Our LIC is constantly constrained by ROE and we were slow to learn our lessons in Iraq. We lose every PR fight that arises, because of the ingrained anti-Americanism of the international press (earned or unearned).

But logistics? We own that field. There are two operations that became far stronger over the last 10+ years. Air Power, especially close air support, and logistics.

In no way to I advocate a war with Russia. Just in case some may somehow get that idea. No way. I'm not even saying a war with them would be easy. Heck, no. My immediate impression is that they'd dissolve their conventional units once they lost air superiority and bleed an invading army to death with unconventional warfare.

So, yeah, if we fight their war on their turn (as we've been doing), we make tons of mistakes. Ton of mistakes that we openly explore and don't try to cover up doesn't mean that other nations have caught up and can now outclass us.

Blogger John Williams August 07, 2014 7:06 PM  

They're poorly trained, low morale, and their discipline is not much better than frat boys..
Every male, back in the days of the Warsaw Pact took Military Science in high school while the women took what accounts to combat medicine training.

Remember it took 5 Shermans to take out a Panther, but we had the numbers to win. Numbers speak volumes.

Blogger Feather Blade August 07, 2014 7:08 PM  

"Because the president decimated our Constitution, then we don’t have to."

Ah, the Vashti effect.

Plus ça change...

Anonymous Noah B. August 07, 2014 7:10 PM  

And amidst all the talk about possible outcomes of a US-Russian war, patrick is the only one to mention nukes?

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein August 07, 2014 7:29 PM  

Which is why the highly trained armies of Napoleon and Hitler roundly defeated them, right?

The Russians had better generals in both wars...

Anonymous Godfrey August 07, 2014 7:37 PM  

We live under a leftist government and it has been a leftist government since the beginning. What we observe today, and have observed for decades, is a struggle between leftist factions. The so-called neo-conservatives are merely one leftist faction among many. They are a leftist faction that is more militaristic than the rest. I would liken them to Progressives (e.g. Wilson or Roosevelt) or Trotskyites.

Blogger Matthew August 07, 2014 7:44 PM  

"Ah, the Vashti effect."

Good analogy. Similarly effective response is indicated.

Anonymous buckeyecopperhead August 07, 2014 7:55 PM  

The Progressive Rainbow Coalition may despise the Archduke's monarchical ways, but they adore his extensive hat collection.

Ostrich feathers? FABULOUSSSS!

Anonymous Grinder August 07, 2014 8:41 PM  

Still, if all you want to do is say, "The US isn't so great. In fact, they suck" have at it. All I suggest it putting any other military under the same microscope and then you'll realize that we fixate on a broken arm when others have sucking chest wounds.

The US sucks balls...literally now that all flavours of queerdom and faggotry have been embraced by the military. Of course, I must concede that USA beat the hell out of Grenada back on '83 which totally nullifies the defeat by Vietnam - the well-known high tech, well-trained powerhouse of SE Asia.

I wish you big America boosters get your war with Russia. You are all so much smarter than Napoleon and Hitler, right? They didn't have grrrl power on their side.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 07, 2014 8:41 PM  

Air Power, especially close air support, and logistics.

I guess it's lucky we have the F35 then.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 07, 2014 8:46 PM  

Of course, it could all be moot, because the wonderful CDC says Ebola's coming here.

Blogger James Dixon August 07, 2014 9:47 PM  

> Ton of mistakes that we openly explore and don't try to cover up doesn't mean that other nations have caught up and can now outclass us.

I didn't say they could outclass us. I said that with the advantages listed, they could take us to task. :)

But yeah, I don't think we're really disagreeing significantly.

Anonymous Anonymous August 07, 2014 9:56 PM  

--I would assume that it can be winterized to a degree, but does not have same same performance in bitterly cold weather as Russian gear.--

There was the Korean War.

- Vincent

Anonymous zen0 August 07, 2014 10:07 PM  

@ OwenMy immediate impression is that they'd dissolve their conventional units once they lost air superiority and bleed an invading army to death with unconventional warfare.

What your analysis ignores is strategy and tactics.

They won't go head to head. Russians don't seem to be morons and the Americans can't pull their shit together to save their ass. It does not matter how big a dick you got if you can't decide where to stick it or how to move it around. They will continue to do what they do. Russia will continue to support the Ukrainian Russo-centrics and Nato will continue to support the Euro centrics. Eventually there will be a ceasefire and Ukraine will be divided de facto with continuing options for harassing each other.

Anonymous zen0 August 07, 2014 10:09 PM  

The other skeptic August 07, 2014 8:46 PM

Of course, it could all be moot, because the wonderful CDC says Ebola's coming here


And if it won't come on its own, they will bring it, by golly.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat August 07, 2014 10:12 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat August 07, 2014 10:13 PM  

The problem with the US military is that it takes it about 100 days to stage any conflict. It took us over 100 days to get ready for Gulf War 1, and about that long to mass for Gulf War 2. Once we started using said equipment, we had about 100 days worth of stuff to shoot. We used to pre-stage the entire War for Europe in Germany and the UK, but we used all of that equipment up in Iraq. Practically everything we took to Afghanistan is so worn out that we're better off letting the Afghans salvage it for scrap metal than freight it home to do it ourselves. We don't have anything TO pre-stage, and even if we did, there's no way the Russians let us do it anywhere close enough to the Ukraine to be effective.

IMHO, a war with Russia over Ukraine would quickly devolve into a WW1-style war of attrition, because the US would not be able to bring enough gizmos (airplanes, missiles, etc.) to bear to change a ground war, but could use our superior stock of suppression weapons to keep their large number of inferior gizmos (armor, planes, etc.) out of the fight. In that scenario, the US would not only lose decisively, we would be crushed.

Anonymous zen0 August 07, 2014 10:22 PM  

Air Power, especially close air support, and logistics.

I can't find the original commenter of this, but close air support for what?

Who had air superiority in Vietnam?

Aircraft, drone or otherwise, are just a substitute for artillery. Nobody ever won any war with just artillery.
Iowa Jima............they pretty much excavated the island with artillery.

And?

Boots on the Ground
Boots on the Ground
Lookin like a grunt with boots on the ground
Gun in yer hand full of dum-dum rounds.
Cleanin out the vermin with boots on the ground....

Anonymous zen0 August 07, 2014 10:28 PM  

@ Kentucky Packrat

The problem with the US military is that it takes it about 100 days to stage any conflict.

Yes. And as I recall, Sadam did not have any submarines or naval power. Or a functional air force. They buried it in the sand.

Or nuke options.

And it still took forever and had to be a coalition.

And Europe wasn't Sadam's whore, like it is with Putin.

Let me count the ways...

Anonymous 11B August 07, 2014 11:11 PM  

The only reason the Soviets "won" was because of Lendlease and the Western Front.

No, I think you are misinformed. If you are going to make a statement like that then I suppose one could say the only reason the US won was because 80 percent of the Third Reich's forces and material were on the Eastern Front.

Anonymous zen0 August 07, 2014 11:28 PM  

Re: US superiority

Additionally, Stalin was well aware that other European armies had utterly disintegrated when faced with Nazi military efficacy and responded effectively by subjecting his army to galvanizing terror and nationalist appeals to patriotism. He also appealed to the Russian Orthodox church and images of national Russian people

Anyone find this familiar?

Anonymous Anonymous August 07, 2014 11:33 PM  

@Owen, I hope you are right. But I think you are wrong. In David Hackworth's About Face, he discusses a battle in which the commanding officer eschewed artillery because he had helicopter gunships. Come the day of battle, somehow the helo fuel was contaminated, and the first flights of assaulting paratroopers were almost wiped out. Flash forward to Operation Anaconda (Not a Good Day to Die) and Tommy Franks eschews artillery because he has Apache gunships. Well, guess what happened. The helo assault goes in unsupported. To make things worse, they assault into the bottom of the valley (as planned!) ceding the high ground to the Taliban fighters, who easily pin down the troopers, who in turn start calling desperately for supporting fire. Meanwhile, Delta operators have infiltrated to the tippy top of the mountains, and can provide clear targets to the gunships (now on station) and fighter-bombers. But they are ignored because the troopers under fire--pinned down and with poor visibility--have priority. These two battles occurred 35+ years apart, which should tell you something.

Anonymous 11B August 07, 2014 11:35 PM  

I would like to know from anyone who has served in the US military or any of the United States's European Allies, are the respective militaries able to operate for sustained periods in a winter as bitter as Russia's?

I served in the infantry in US Army in Alaska back when the active army units in Alaska were basically dedicated to operating in, and only in, Alaska. I write that because the units in Alaska today are trained to deploy like other units, and have had several deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. So they don't necessarily train full time to deal with a subarctic environment. Therefore, I cannot vouch for how well prepared today's soldiers in Alaska are for that type of fight.

But using my experience, I will give my two cents. During my time, we were the only units in the Army to be permanently based in such a climate. We trained and were equipped for the Alaskan environment and operated there twelve months per year. At that time we had around 3 battalions of active infantry in Alaska, which was about 1200 men. (This does not include the support troops and other combat troops like artillerymen). That was it as far as full time infantry soldiers in the US army who were trained and equipped to fight in minus 40 degree weather. Now we did have the Northern Warfare Training Center in which other army and marine units would come up and train for a month or so. But they could only process one or two infantry companies (150-300 troops) during the winter months per year. So it wasn't like they were cranking out soldiers trained to fight in the subarctic.

There were some national guard units, such as in AK, MN and VT, that were trained to fight in the cold and mountainous terrain. Additionally the USMC had a mountain warfare school in the mountains of CA. I assume they functioned like our NWTC and trained a similar number of people per year.

But as far as I know, we were it as far as full time infantry who had the gear and experience with the extreme cold. For example, even the troops who came to NWTC for the one month of training, were only given temporary gear for the session. Once they left, they resorted to using the equipment that the rest of the army used.

I'd imagine Russia has far more soldiers who train and are adapted to the extreme cold environment.

Anonymous dh August 07, 2014 11:37 PM  

So Obama has decided to re-invade Iraq and re-bomb them. So I retract everything from above this point.

What a tool.

Anonymous 11B August 07, 2014 11:42 PM  

One more thing, this old newsreel from the 1950s will give you a look into winter training at Ft. Greely, AK. Though way before I was born, this will give you an idea of how cold and remote Ft. Greely is. This is where we did our winter exercises. Like I said above, not many army units train in these conditions.

Anonymous paradox August 07, 2014 11:55 PM  

So I'm guessing this would be fought via proxies (Ukraine etc) to avoid nuclear war? The minute an incursion happens on either soil it's DEFCON 1.

Anonymous ENthePeasant August 08, 2014 2:24 AM  

Trained with Norewegian Army in the northern most reaches of that freezing ass country in the 1970s. I know Marines would also train there.

Anonymous Luke August 08, 2014 2:30 AM  

zen0 August 07, 2014 10:22 PM


"Iowa Jima............they pretty much excavated the island with artillery."

Not exactly.
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/iwojima/iwo-3.htm

Anonymous ENthePeasant August 08, 2014 2:31 AM  

"The only reason the Soviets "won" was because of Lendlease and the Western Front."

The first lendlease equipment didn't arrive in the Soviet Union until the middle of 1943, way after the Red Army had cut off Stalingrad. I believe mostly it was railroad maintenance equipment at that point, with trucks and Armor arriving in early 1944. Very little of the equipment actually went into service until they made it to the Polish Frontier in mid 1944.

Anonymous ENthePeasant August 08, 2014 2:38 AM  

Interesting film from 1950. Funny that a year from then we'd be in North Korea doing some serious winter warfare.

Anonymous Mr. Stubby August 08, 2014 2:46 AM  

"Which is why the highly trained armies of Napoleon and Hitler roundly defeated them, right?"

Give the Russians a reason for national honor and vengeance, and they will fight. Last I heard, Putin has a approval rating of 80 percent.

Anyone find this familiar? Putin.

Let's face it, the Russians out classed, out manned, and out tanked the Germans.

Anonymous ENthePeasant August 08, 2014 3:00 AM  

The Germans had some severe weaknesses. One, they were hand making finicky tanks that required tremendous amounts of fuel and maintenance to run. Very few Tiger tanks were destroyed. Mostly they broke down and were abandoned. The other problem and it also goes back to foolishly over engineered and sensitive equipment is they lacked fuel. By 1944 almost all of there trucks were captured in combat (Many Panzer units were using American Studebaker trucks) and it's believed as high as 34% of their fuel (German General Staff estimates) was Russian. This sounds like enough but often times operations were already short half the needed fuel. Mostly they fought with light infantry and batteries of 88s from 1943 on. The Wehrmacht beat the Russian very handily when they had fuel, Artillery and trucks.

Anonymous ENthePeasant August 08, 2014 3:05 AM  

It should also be pointed out that the Germans defeated the US Army very handily when combat power was equal. Martin Van Creveld spells all this out in his book "Fighting Power: German and U.S. Army Performance, 1939-1945"

Blogger Doom August 08, 2014 3:50 AM  

While I agree with the Ukrainians, and would support them? Not with the Euro or Americrats who are in place. Stupid, foolish, insane. It matters not what any thinks. If this is the time, it will happen. A match in a gasoline tank will do much the same on a smaller scale. Fortunately or not, I have neither the match, nor am I in place to choose.

In the long run, a bloodbath now would... possibly... be better than a bloodbath later. They aren't at full strength, on any front. Nor are they, or are they likely to become, united in conflict. They know who they are and what I discuss. Which leaves me to believe that it won't happen unless it has to happen.

Honestly, I am not sure whether to hope for it now, while they are weak, or pray for it to pass my generation and come when the stormtroopers are armed, geared, and in marching order. One, an end to an age. The other, an end of man. Pick your poison, perhaps. Or... abide it.

Anonymous Daniel H August 08, 2014 6:16 AM  

>>They were cowed by Operation Barbarossa

The Red Army cowed by Barbarossa? You're ignorant.

Yeah they got their tail wooded, until the day they didn't.

Anonymous Alexander August 08, 2014 8:41 AM  

Well that's clearly wrong. I would need some time to get the hard data, but the disaster of Convoy PQ-17 was Summer of 1942, and that was hardly the first of the Arctic convoys, and by that point the Persian corridor was already on line, as was the Pacific shipping route. Memory serves that American built trains and trucks, as well as raw materials for Soviet-built armor (in particular, aluminium) and foodstuffs were instrumental in the buildup for Operation Uranus.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell August 08, 2014 9:27 AM  

Except Ukraine has the rebels on the back foot.

Blogger Matamoros August 08, 2014 10:07 AM  

TontoBubbaGoldstein: The Russians had better generals in both wars...

That's why they lost 30 million men, right! Some generalship.

Blogger Matamoros August 08, 2014 10:10 AM  

11B: No, I think you are misinformed. If you are going to make a statement like that then I suppose one could say the only reason the US won was because 80 percent of the Third Reich's forces and material were on the Eastern Front.

You have been reading too much allied, especially soviet, propaganda.

I gave you two sources, read them.

Blogger Derrick Bonsell August 08, 2014 11:05 AM  

Mosier is an English professor who plays fast and lose with the facts. Suvorov's work predates the opening of Soviet archives, and his theory of Stalin planning to attack the Germans has been disproven by Glantz and others.

Disregard those works and read some David Glantz books. When Titans Clashed is one of the best one volume works about the Soviet war against Germany.

Anonymous 11B August 08, 2014 1:06 PM  

@matamoros

You have been reading too much allied, especially soviet, propaganda.

I am not sure if you are American, or of your age. But for most Americans born after WW2 and raised during the Cold War, we received a pretty one-sided account of WW2. In school we were not exposed to the Soviet side and firmly believed the USA won the war. We saw production statistics for aircraft, ships, jeeps, tanks, etc., and learned that we were the arsenal of democracy.

We learned our battles were the biggest, harshest, and most important to the outcome of the war. We learned that our forces faced the smartest, best equipped, best trained enemy in history. While the Soviets didn't even give rifles to all their soldiers, and told troops to wait until a guy was killed, then they could pick up his rifle and move on.

I remember during my time in the army, some guy almost got beat up when he pointed out that the Battle of Stalingrad was the largest battle of the war. The other guys thought it must have been Normandy and accused him of being a commie. Yeah, that is how I grew up. Everything I learned was pretty much the notion that the US, (and not even the UK who were worthless and needed our help anyway), won the war.

After the Cold War I began to take an interest and discovered that my initial perceptions might have been wrong. Without getting into too much detail, I have come to the view that the Eastern Front was the major theater of the European war and that the Soviet's did the lion's share of fighting against Germany. Are they 100 percent responsible for the victory? No, but they are the most responsible.

The USA did the lion's share of the fighting against the Japanese. Are we 100 percent responsible for this victory? No, but we definitely are the most responsible.

Finally, I have come to believe that the Third Reich was probably the best military in the history of the world, and I am even more impressed with the fact they held out for so long against such long odds. They might have been on the losing side, but they were the best in the fight.

Blogger Matamoros August 08, 2014 4:18 PM  

Derrick Bonsell: Mosier is an English professor who plays fast and lose with the facts. Suvorov's work predates the opening of Soviet archives,

And your credentials are?

Mosier goes through the statistics and discounts the soviet propaganda about the glorious Red Army going from victory to victory, and gives the truth of the matter - 30 million dead soviets.

Suvorov's facts are still facts even though stooge house historians don't like them. He used the open Soviet archives to produce number of new works, only one of which is in English, i.e., "The Chief Culprit". Read it.

11B: But for most Americans born after WW2 and raised during the Cold War, we received a pretty one-sided account of WW2.

Very true. I was raised during the cold war and remember it well. When I began traveling to Russia it was funny that they were taught that only Russia really fought, and won the war single handedly.

Used to sit and drink vodka shots as we compared the Russian and American versions. Quite a good laugh for all of us.

Mosier brings a needed correction to all the propaganda, and isn't a house historian who has to produce politically correct history.

He certainly proves that, as you note, "the Third Reich was probably the best military in the history of the world."

A lot of bravery on all sides, but the German tactics and Hitler's strategy brought them to within a hairsbreadth of victory.

Another good work, on "Hitler, is Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny" by R. H. S. Stolfi - professor emeritus at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and retired colonel in the US Marine Corps Reserve.

We are beginning to learn the real history of the period and war as opposed to the politically correct history.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 08, 2014 7:29 PM  

Ice Breaker: Who started the Second World War? by Viktor Suvorov translated by Thomas B Beattie.

Blogger Akulkis August 09, 2014 7:10 AM  

Even now, our troops are undoubtedly better trained, better equipped, and more experienced than the Russians. That's not enough to overcome the advantages they have in local known terrain, logistics, and the absolutely certainty on their part that they're defending their land against invaders.

We are better equipped and trained for fighting against insurgencies. In no way, shape or form are we well-equipped to fight a protracted conventional war against a stand-up army like the Russians.

1 -- We will NOT have air superiority. That means that we have to have Stinger batteries detached out to brigades, and platoons from those batteries detached out to battalions, and sections from those platoons detached out to companies.

2 As of the mid 1990's to present, EVERY SINGLE TO&E STINGER MISSILE UNIT is a reserve component unit.

3. My first unit was a Stinger unit....which is where I was from 1989 to 1994. From 1994 to 2012, I was in an Infantry battalion (and one of the best performing infantry battalions in the entire National Guard, as demonstrated by our performance in both Iraq and Afghanistan)

In the 23 years of service in Stinger batteries and Infantry companies, NOT ONCE did I ever witness or hear about, let alone participate in, any combined arms training of Stingers and ANY other kind of unit.

Until such happens, the Russians would maul us from the air -- literally throw enough aircraft into the air until the USAF fighters and Army ADA assets are overwhelmed (so many aircraft to thrown at a target that we literally wouldn't be able to shoot them down fast enough to prevent them from attacking friendly assets, due to both lack of firing platforms, and expending all available missiles available to each firer). At that point, we are totally SCREWED.

Why? All the Russians would have to do is redeploy some of their air assets. In contrast, we would have a 10,000 mile supply line, constricted at the straights of Bosperus (i.e. submarine bait) as soon as any supply ship makes it into the Black Sea [I sincrely doubt that the Russians would torpedo any ship within the Dardenelles.... when they can sink it just before it enters or just after it leaves... thus leaving the channel clear for their own vessels after hostilities are over].

The latest Russian tanks have a dazzler system SPECIFICALLY designed to disrupt the laser rangefinders on M-1 tanks.

In other words, putting our forces inot Ukraine is just asking for tremendous losses with NO hope of winning without going nuclear first AND catching the Russians off guard. Ruling out nuclear exchange means we just lose a whole lot of men, weapons and equipment needlessly.

I'm currently in a petroleum pipeline unit. I wouldn't bet a wooden nickel that it has the slightest clue of what to do, let alone the combat skills necessary to actually pull it off, to protect its own assets well enough to keep the oil flowing to the front lines. At a recent discussion, I mentioned that, tactically, this unit blows, and literally 1 squad of enemy infantry could (with the right planning) cause us such losses that the entire theater petroleum supply system could be put out of commission for a month. I am sure that 20 years ago, when the doctrine was still AirLand Battle with the projected enemy being the Red Army, that this unit would not be so utterly unprepared and clueless about how to defend itself.

Any talk of sending the U.S. Army to fight a conventional army in less than 5 years and actually winning (let alone keeping the low casualties of less than a dozen/week that the American public has become accustomed to) is a pipe dream, and nothing more. Fighting any competent army like the Russians, we will have high losses. Fighting them right now, we'll have even higher losses AND get our butts kicked right back into the Black Sea.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 09, 2014 12:04 PM  

Any talk of sending the U.S. Army to fight a conventional army in less than 5 years and actually winning (let alone keeping the low casualties of less than a dozen/week that the American public has become accustomed to) is a pipe dream, and nothing more.

Hmmm, Kratman also claims that it will take five years to train the US Military up for a conventional war, IIRC.

Blogger Akulkis August 09, 2014 12:54 PM  

I haven't seen anyone use a filter over a flashlight lens in over a decade. That used to be an absolute get-your-ass-chewed-by-your-team-leader-squad-leader-and-platoon-sergeatn sort of offense. Now, not only does nobody flashlight lenses, but the concept of use a flashlight as briefly as possible, and any other aspect of "reduce your light signature" has been almost completely forgotten.

People talk on the radio like they're blabbing with their girlfriend on the telephone. It takes about 10 seconds for radio direction-finding equipment to get a positional lock on a radio when it's transmitting. Current use practices are completely safe when fighting rag-tag non-state actors, but when faced with an enemy which
a) has ample radio direction finding equipment,
b) has a doctrine of "if the position of an enemy radio transmission has been determined, IMMEDIATELY call a fire mission to saturate 500m left & right, plus and minus from that location, and
c) has been buying artillery pieces like it's going out of style since the 1600's
...well then, any army with poor radio discipline is going to be decapitated all the way up to the brigade level in no time.

Back in the early 1990's in radio operations, we would ROUTINELY set up a remote-control set for the radios at company level and higher, and run AT LEAST 1 km of telephone wire to the other half of the remot-control wet, which would be next to the radio, and the antenna. Why? So that we were in the habit of that ONLY thing being exposed to a Russian counter-radio artillery barrage would be the radio, the antenna, the remote control set, and two signal soldiers, with all but the antenna dug-in. Knowledge of how to repair a damaged coaxial RF cable was common -- now it's considered to be an esoteric art ("Have supply order a new one!").

Headquarters companies used to have about a dozen radio remote control sets, now they have only 3, and only guys with more than 20 years in service even understand what the radio remote control set does, let alone how utterly simple it is to use (and yes, it compatible with the modern SINCGARS radio -- it provides just as much functionality as for the PRC-25 and PRC-77 radios that it was originally designed for).

When I was in originally, no unit set up in the field during AT without the company and battalion commanders getting a visual fly-over in a helicopter, so that they could see what their positions looked like from the air -- so that they could understand how well the unit was obscuring its visual signature -- does it blend in? or are the positions evident? Of those positions which are evident, do the camo nets at least prevent identification of what's underneath?

Now we have sprawling multi-tent geodesic dome tent-complexes at battalion level and above. There's absolutely NO disguising what the hell that is, no matter how many camo nets you use.

As I write this, our Army...my army... is absolutely ill-trained, and ill-equipped to fight the Russian Army.... even it Russia were just on the other side of the border like Canada, let alone in a theater of operations like Ukraine.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 09, 2014 1:55 PM  

Russia says that the US is storing tanks and other armored vehicles in Norway.

Anonymous The other skeptic August 09, 2014 3:01 PM  

Now that the danger to the Federal Reserve Cartel is looming what will their next step be in provoking the war?

Blogger Akulkis August 09, 2014 9:27 PM  

Regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, I would be much happier if Obama simply put every American on a plane and ended it that way. Truly.

WHAT!?!?!?!?! Iraq and Afghanistan don't have no WTC!

Blogger Dewave August 11, 2014 10:02 PM  

USSR would have lost without lend lease aid, which began arriving almost immediately, not in 1943 as was falsely asserted. LL tanks were in action around Moscow fall 41. But the tanks planes and ammo all played second fiddle to logistics support. Two thirds of the red army trucks and virtually all their locomotives and rolling stock was from the allies. Without this red army would have collapsed.

Red army would also have been defeated at Stalingrad if not for the torch landings, which drew immense amounts of German aircraft from Stalingrad to Sicily and Tunisia. Prior to this, the Luftwaffe had total air superiority over Stalingrad and had the Russians pushed back to a tiny strip along the river. As they lost air superiority, the red army began to turn the tide. Its also worth pointing out that the axis lost about as many men in the Tunisia debacle as surrendered at Stalingrad.

For the same reasons there was no chance of the IJN supporting an invasion of mainland USA, there was no chance of Germany defeating the US and Britain. Their enormous production and deapower advantage would have had them winning even without Russia, which entered the war on the side of Germany, let us not forget.

Russia was not so immune and absolutely needed allied help to survive - as is made plain by Stalins statements at the time.

The idea that the USSR did or could have won the war on their own is a myth assiduously spread by the many Soviet apologists with which America has always been cursed. The idea that the USSR did most of the work because it had the most divisions is as sensible as claiming France was the most important western ally for the same reason.

Blogger Dewave August 11, 2014 10:15 PM  

That said, the US should not get involved with the Ukraine or think Russia is a pushover.

If you want a fight Russia did win single handedly, look at the Napoleonic wars. Russia, alone, beat the most powerful army Europe had ever seen, a coalition of France, Austria, German states, etc, commanded by one of the most gifted military minds in history.

I would argue the imperial french army was a more dominant force than the Wehrmacht, and napoleon was worth 10 Hitlers. They got farther than the Wehrmacht ever did, took and burned Moscow, but still suffered utter, total, crushing defeat.

Contrary to the Anglo centric typical history told, there was more to it than the cold - Russia won because their leaders understood what was needed to strategically defeat Napoleon, and their army was the best in Europe after the French - in some crucial aspects, such as light cavalry, they were the best.

If Hitler and Napoleon came up short, I don't see Obama, or any other likely occupant of the white house, succeeding.

Russia has a long and impressive history, of which they are well aware.there is more to it than just the long slow train wreck of the Soviets

Anonymous Anonymous August 13, 2014 5:36 PM  

You know, it is funny to read these comments as though "neocons" are actually CONSIDERING a ground war against Russia. Really?

There are many many ways to hurt an opposition besides militarily. All we have to do is tell the Russians they can't conduct business in dollars, and get Germany to say the Russians can't conduct business with them in Euros. Of course it needed to be done 4 months ago to let it all sink in before the winter came and the Germans really needed Russian gas...but even then they could manage.

Whether the Iraq war was a good idea or a bad idea is a moot point, but right now it WAS a mistake by Obama to get the hell out. We should be squashing these ISIS guys now,and we should have squashed them when they were in Syria.

It is objectively NOT a good idea for ISIS to take Iraq. Sure it's OK for the jihadi's to kill one another in confined circumstances, but it is not OK for some cross national fascist group that is out to kill us or fuck with us to BECOME a state. States can get nuclear weapons.

I guess I find it amusing that folks in manosphere hate progressives,but applaud when these same progressives extricate us from military engagements. Maybe it appeals to their libertarian sensibilities. But remember, Odumbo and Jarrett and the Alinksy crowd are doing it because they think the USA is such a bad, bad, boy...and everyone will love us if we weren't just so darned unilateral.

Fuck that. Exercise military power when it suits our interest. Smashing ISIS fighters like so much road kill is in our interests. Droning al Qaeda and Taliban assholes is in our interest. I don't give a rat's ass how unlikely it is that they can do harm to us. They WANT to hurt us. So let's hurt them first.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts