47 thoughts on “War In Europe”

  1. Well, we’re doing a cheap re-run of the great depression – may as well top it off with a small economically expansive war. The Krugtron should be pleased.

  3. It’s certainly not unthinkable. Obamatrons thought that Putin getting Crimea was unthinkable. Then they said Putin taking a chunk of Ukraine was unthinkable.

    When I and others suggested Putin will look to the Baltics next – in order to expose NATO as a shell unwilling to go to bat for a tiny Baltic – they claimed that was unthinkable too.

    Well the unthinkable (to Obama zealots) has already occurred.

    But while I say war in Yerp is plausible, it is, at the moment, not likely. WWII is not a good analogue. There you had guys who wanted to start a war. Hitler’s goal was the destruction of Bolshevism. He, and the general staff, wanted to take on the Soviet Union.
    Bolshevists wanted to take over Germany but via internal agitation.

    So far I don’t see that with Putin. He wants some stuff and he wants political victory.

    Plus I don’t expect that the Western European nations are willing to fight a war unless directly attacked. Maybe not even then.

    WWI isn’t a great analogue either although it’s closer to our present situation than WWII. The French of today are not the French of WWI “elan”.

    One interesting aspect of this is that a war with Russia would really be contrary to the Jihadist intent of bringing Europe into the caliphate. No way are the Russians going to be as lenient with then as the French, Italians, Spanish and Brits have been. We would find the Jihadists on the side of the Western Nations against the Rooskies.

    1. But while I say war in Yerp is plausible, it is, at the moment, not likely. WWII is not a good analogue. There you had guys who wanted to start a war. Hitler’s goal was the destruction of Bolshevism. He, and the general staff, wanted to take on the Soviet Union.
      Bolshevists wanted to take over Germany but via internal agitation.

      So far I don’t see that with Putin. He wants some stuff and he wants political victory.

      But where is the natural point Putin or his successors will stop wanting “some stuff”? Hitler and his cronies had far more limited goals early on in their careers. But when they realized that they had a good chance of gaining control of Germany and turn it into the greatest power of Europe, their ambitions and desire for wanting some stuff soared (with such things as the “thousand year reich” and the planned conquest of Eurasia and Africa, partitioned between Germany, Japan, and Italy).

      Just because Putin’s moves are limited now, doesn’t mean that Russia’s future moves (which may or may not be managed by Putin) will remain similarly unambitious.

      1. “But where is the natural point Putin or his successors will stop wanting “some stuff”? ”

        Remains to be seen. However the point I’m trying to make is that – for now – I see Putin as wanting to reconstitute the old Soviet Empah in part or whole. Whether that includes places like Poland or not remains to be seen.

        Where it becomes more like a WWII analog is if Putin wants to take Germany. So far I don’t see that.

        “Hitler and his cronies had far more limited goals early on in their careers. But when they realized that they had a good chance of gaining control of Germany and turn it into the greatest power of Europe, their ambitions and desire for wanting some stuff soared (with such things as the “thousand year reich” and the planned conquest of Eurasia and Africa, partitioned between Germany, Japan, and Italy).”

        Hitler had 2.5 main goals once he came to power:

        1) Restore that territory that was taken from Germany after WWI, which contained Germans in it and which even the people of Germany themselves felt was rightfully theirs.

        2) Attack and destroy the Soviet Union.

        3) Revenge on France.

        It’s important to remember that the German General Staff viewpoint in the middle to late 30’s was that France was THE major power to be wary of…not the Soviets. They thought this because they crushed Russia in WWI and the Soviet debacle in Finland showed the Russians had not gotten any better.

        So they concluded that the Soviets could be easily crushed again and since it was the Soviets that caused a lot of the unrest after the Weimar collapse, The Sov’s became a major objective of both Hitler and the General Staff.

        “Just because Putin’s moves are limited now, doesn’t mean that Russia’s future moves (which may or may not be managed by Putin) will remain similarly unambitious.”

        No argument. I still claim that the political plum of demonstrating that NATO will not come to the rescue of NATO partners like Estonia will be far far too tempting for Putin to resist. NATO expansion is one reason why Russia is causing trouble in the first place. Note that I’m not saying that expansion was unwise, necessarily.

        1. People like Putin will always want more power.
          People who gain power with the gun think it’s the way to more power.

          So I think the only thing that’ll stop Putin trying to take just a little bit more again and again is a Reaganite willingness to confront him.

        2. Whether that includes places like Poland or not remains to be seen.

          They’ve already made the intent clear. They want Poland. It’s only the realization that remains to be seen.

  4. “Obamatrons thought that Putin getting Crimea was unthinkable. Then they said Putin taking a chunk of Ukraine was unthinkable.”

    Really? Who said that? Are you talking about what people said on this blog?

    “When I and others suggested Putin will look to the Baltics next – in order to expose NATO as a shell unwilling to go to bat for a tiny Baltic – they claimed that was unthinkable too.”

    Who said that? (Not me – I only said that NATO would defend the Baltic countries with every means at their disposal.)

    1. “Really? Who said that? Are you talking about what people said on this blog?”

      Inside and outside the blog. If youw ant to know who, then go back and find the posts for yourself.

      “Who said that? (Not me – I only said that NATO would defend the Baltic countries with every means at their disposal.)”

      And I think you are hopelessly incorrect. Totally naive.

      Think about it:

      Is Germany going to go to war with Russia over…Estonia?

      Really?

      Is France?

      Really?

      That is all out war and no one is going to select that. No one. Especially since that war would heavily depend upon the US for supply and firepower (look at the war plans for when the Warsaw Pact broke through the Fulda Gap).

      And do you REALLY think Obama would take the US into war with Russia over Estonia?

      If you do, you are hopelessly silly.

      1. You don’t take NATO seriously, while I think it is the United States’ most serious international commitment. Refreshingly, our difference of opinions doesn’t seem to be based on political ideology.

        1. “You don’t take NATO seriously,..”

          Wrong (again).

          People think of NATO as an automaton…..an entity separate from the control of the member nations. It’s not. Commitment to NATO rules depends upon whether or not members choose to committ – no matter what they agreed to.

          I don’t believe NATO’s Article 5 commitment is binary – war/no war. I think that if NATO members Germany France or the UK were attacked, then all NATO members would respond militarily.

          If Poland were attacked, NATO might or might not respond – that would look a lot like 1939 wouldn’t it – you don’t think that would give the members pause?

          I do not believe they will go to war with Russia if Estonia is attacked.

      2. You know that Obama will be in Estonia in a few days? (I didn’t.) During and after the visit, I’d be interested in hearing what you think — whether you see any “tells” – signs that the United States’ declaration of “unwavering commitment” to Estonia is somehow hollow or otherwise not what it seems to be.

        1. We already have the Ukrainian example, such as negotiations over the partitioning of the Ukraine without inviting Ukraine officials. And of course, the original nuclear proliferation treaty where the US and Europe promised to protect Ukraine from Russia and proceeded to do so in a rather perfunctory and minimal way.

        2. I’d be interested in hearing what you think — whether you see any “tells” – signs that the United States’ declaration of “unwavering commitment” to Estonia is somehow hollow or otherwise not what it seems to be.

          My interest lies in hearing if Obama’s interpretation of the United States’ declaration of “unwavering commitment” to Estonia involves showing any backbone on his part. I realize this is an act of purest optimism on my part, given his astonishing lack of backbone in just about every foreign policy matter since he became President.

          Your statement does intrigue me, however. When using words like “tells”, do you think that Obama fancies himself to have a poker face after he completely folded over the “red line” comment in Syria? And whatever could you mean by “somehow hollow”…do you think that Obama would actually honor NATO commitments? I do not believe that he would or will, nor do I believe that he, Kerry, and Hagel could craft any kind of credible strategy between the three of them.

          1. ” do not believe that he would or will, nor do I believe that he, Kerry, and Hagel could craft any kind of credible strategy between the three of them.”

            I agree with you – don’t believe any of that either.

        3. “You know that Obama will be in Estonia in a few days? (I didn’t.)”

          You know that Obama put up fake Greek columns behind his acceptance speech podium?

          You know that Obama crfeated a placard for his lectern labeled “Office of the President Elect”?

          You know that Obama drew a red line in Syria regarding use of chem weapons?

          You know that Obama is all about facade and not substance?

          “During and after the visit, I’d be interested in hearing what you think — whether you see any “tells” – signs that the United States’ declaration of “unwavering commitment” to Estonia is somehow hollow or otherwise not what it seems to be.”

          See above.

          And I asked you several questions…..do you REALLY think Merkel and Hollande and Obama would GO TO WAR against Russia to save Estonia?

          1. “And I asked you several questions…..do you REALLY think Merkel and Hollande and Obama would GO TO WAR against Russia to save Estonia?”

            Gregg, we went through this exact conversation not very long ago! You kept asking me those very questions, and I kept answering you. Once again: my answer is YES.

            However: I think I made an unfortunate choice by asking about Obama. Look at the replies above – they are all about Obama.

            I think that, for this situation, it doesn’t matter who is leading the United States (or France or Germany) so long as it is a democratically elected leader. Lets just talk about the United States, so I don’t have to keep mentioning France and Germany. Here’s my position: Anyone who could plausibly manage to get elected President of the United States or even become the nominee of the Democratic or Republican parties in our system would do the exact the same thing in face of a threat to a NATO nation. Whether the President of the United States is Obama, or McCain, or Romney, or Al Gore or George W. Bush, or George H W Bush or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan or Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford or Richard Nixon or Dwight Eisenhower, any of them would go to war to defend a NATO country.

            We disagree about Obama, but I think Obama has proved to be well within the mainstream of American politics, and thats not at all surprising, because our system only allows moderates to become President.

            My claim has nothing to do with Obama. My claim has to do with the United States and what we became during and after World War II, and how NATO is the most important element in our foreign policy. I can certainly elaborate on what I mean by all that, but I’m surprised I have to: I thought it was pretty well accepted that we are no-shit not-messing-around run-for-your-life-because we-are-going-to-prevail-at-any-cost-and-you-will-get-stomped when it comes to NATO.

          2. because our system only allows moderates to become President.

            Or people pretending to be moderates. Some of us saw through him from the beginning, but the rest of the country is finally starting to catch on.

          3. Obama is a foreign policy moderate. Most, if not all, of the criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy to be found on this blog are opinions regarding why the Obama’s foreign policy is too moderate. All of Obama’s foreign policy decisions have been within the mainstream of American post-WWII foreign policy, and decisions regarding NATO are as mainstream as you can get. A lot of people complain that Obama is on autopilot. I disagree, but consider: the American autopilot software takes this country to war in the event of an attack on a member of NATO. What do I mean by that? The Pentagon will follow civilian orders, but they will advise war. The US Congress, on both sides of the aisle, will push overwhelmingly for war. I’m a mainstream Democrat, and the decision to go to war to defend a member of NATO strikes me as an easy one (with the understanding that this posture is the best way to prevent a war via deterrence.)

          4. Most, if not all, of the criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy to be found on this blog are opinions regarding why the Obama’s foreign policy is too moderate.

            The reason that his foreign policy appears “moderate” is because he feels politically constrained from doing what he’d really like to do. And in his “moderation,” he achieves his goals of allowing America’s enemies ascend unhindered. As far as I can tell, Valerie Jarrett is essentially a foreign agent for Iran.

          5. “Gregg, we went through this exact conversation not very long ago! You kept asking me those very questions, and I kept answering you. Once again: my answer is YES.”

            And I want your answer on record. Besides it’s good to ask again – who knows…maybe you learned something since the last time you were asked. Evidently not.

            “However: I think I made an unfortunate choice by asking about Obama. Look at the replies above – they are all about Obama. ”

            That’s because you cannot separate the NATO response from the person who resides in the Oval Office. Look at what Obama, NATO and the EU DID NOT DO once it was clear Russian had designs on Crimea. Also, as I wrote above. the US is the KEY power in NATO. If the US isn’t willing to back up a NATO response with men and materiel, there is no NATO response. You were actually quite right to include Obama because that’s why I say what I say. Though I also think Merkel has no stomach for war and I certainly don’t think Hollande has the stomach for war.

            Do you?

            For example, were Reagan – at the height of his powers – were president now, and Estonia were attacked I’d say it was 80-20 Reagan takes NATO to war.

            But then, if Reagan were president, Steps would have been taken after Georgia….and after the Crimea…to nip all this in the bud. And I don’t mean war.

          6. “You kept asking me those very questions, and I kept answering you. Once again: my answer is YES. ”

            Actually the reason I asked you several times is that you did not answer clearly. You kept prevaricating.

            So I asked until you gave a clear answer.

            ” Lets just talk about the United States, so I don’t have to keep mentioning France and Germany.”

            Let’s not because that’s a totally useless converssation. NATO is only as responsive as the leaders of the member nations are. If the US says no, there is no war.

            If France and/or Germany say no, then the rest of NATO (except maybe Poland and the UK) would say no and it’s basically a US show.

            But Obama would say no.

            “I think that, for this situation, it doesn’t matter who is leading the United States (or France or Germany) so long as it is a democratically elected leader. ”

            Ok so you saw President Red-Line issue his ultimatum to Syria and then what did he do?

            “Anyone who could plausibly manage to get elected President of the United States or even become the nominee of the Democratic or Republican parties in our system would do the exact the same thing in face of a threat to a NATO nation.”

            What buffoonery is this? First off, 6.5 years ago no one was looking at the Crimea and predicting Russia would ever move (except Palin of course who turned out ot be veyr prescient), so who thinks the person they elect is going to have to deal with this?

            Conservatives did and do….but liberals? HA!

            Then we kept telling Obama lovers that he is making huge mistakes which will lead to Crimea and Ukraine being taken and you liberals scoffed….and were wrong.

            See your “plausibly elect” idea is nonsense because a good portion of the electorate is stupid.

            “We disagree about Obama, but I think Obama has proved to be well within the mainstream of American politics, and thats not at all surprising, because our system only allows moderates to become President. ”

            That you think Obama is a moderate says it all about what you know…nothing. You’ve been told all along he’s not but refuse to listen.

            Now we have to watch Ukraine be taken apart…..after watching Crimea be taken whole.

            “My claim has nothing to do with Obama. ”

            Then your claim is idiotic because it has everything to do with the people in power.

            “My claim has to do with the United States and what we became during and after World War II, and how NATO is the most important element in our foreign policy.”

            THE most important element?

            ” I can certainly elaborate on what I mean by all that,…..”

            Please don’t. I can only take so much 3rd grade policy analysis in one week.

            “I thought it was pretty well accepted that we are no-shit not-messing-around run-for-your-life-because we-are-going-to-prevail-at-any-cost-and-you-will-get-stomped when it comes to NATO.”

            HAhahahaa you are living the 1950’s world if you really think that. Things have changed.

          7. Bob, Obama is far left of moderate. And I can guarantee you that he will not defend Estonia. You can project your wishful thinking on our current President but you are willfully ignoring everything he has done over the past five and a half years.

          8. I can guarantee you that he will not defend Estonia.

            It will be a cold winter in Europe if NATO tries to defend Estonia.

      3. I thought George Clooney’s wedding was going to be in Italy, not Estonia, but maybe someone else is getting married.

        It’s a good thing Obama didn’t follow through with the plans he discussed at last year’s meeting with Baltic leaders, or ISIS would be in control of all of Syria and Lebanon by now. What a difference a year makes when there’s an empty chair in charge.

  5. Putting NATO troops into the Baltic countries earlier, rather than later, might be a good idea, just as a good will visit.

  6. I think a roadmap for Putin would be quite simple. First he annexes as much as possible of Ukraine as he can and he uses its heavy industry (tank, aircraft, naval) funded with oil money to rebuild more of the Russian Army. Then he uses that to do an Anschluss with countries such as Belarus and Kazakhstan. Other countries in the Far East could follow. Or perhaps he will just try to invade Finland and depending on the reaction ex-Warsaw Pact Eastern European Nations.

    The heavy industry in the Ukraine is a big boom for Russia’s Imperial ambitions. Now the main things they lack is advanced technology, which they can still more or less import with oil money, with the exception of semiconductors but they may start looking for China as a model for how to solve that problem.

    Once the new Russian Empire absorbs the broken republics and more it will once again gain the ability to fight against the US. Presently they just do not have the population or GDP but with Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan that would change.

  7. Frankly I had been more concerned for the last decade about a simultaneous Chinese invasion of Taiwan and Korea. However with these events I fear that and the Russian Empire expansion may happen at the same time. Worse be a coordinated effort.

    1. “Worse be a coordinated effort.”

      It may not actually be coordinated in terms of Chinese officials working with Russian officials to plan the campaign.

      But I think China is smart enough to know when to hit.

  8. For the Bob-1’s of the world, please go off into a quiet room and seriously contemplate – with an open and clear mind, the meaning of statements from both Obama and Kerry, when you hear them say things like:

    “That behavior [Crimea, Ukraine invasion, Mosul falling, ethnic cleansing of Yazidi’s, beheading of american journalists, and on and on and on], has no place in the 21st Century.”

  9. Victor Davis Hanson agrees with me:

    “Should Vladimir Putin suddenly discover persecuted Russian speakers in Estonia, we know the script. He will give speeches about the historical ties of Estonia to Russia; he will list his worries about the supposed maltreatment of Russian speakers; he will warn the world that his Russia is a nuclear, and sometimes unpredictable, power and therefore the world should butt out; and then he will snooze through a “You are on the wrong side of history” or “This behavior has no place in the 21st century” canned sermon from Barack Obama — before sending in paramilitary thugs and, if necessary, Russian troops.
    ……………….
    Europe has learned that its much-ballyhooed good-cop “soft power” qualified as power only if its ally, America, in conjunction had lots of bad-cop hard power — and was on occasion apt to use it. But, in contrast, two soft powers equate to softy power. NATO is dying on the vine, without American leadership and with the European Union desperately afraid that Putin might bully his way across the border of a NATO member, thereby exposing the interventionist Article V to be mush, and with it NATO itself.”

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386779/new-world-disorder-victor-davis-hanson

    And as I’ve said earlier:

    Exposing NATO as powerless and therefore shattering it and fragmenting Central Europe is far far too tempting to Putin to ignore.

    1. Most Russian-speaking Estonians live in the capital, which doesn’t lend itself to the kind of carving-off a piece at a time strategy that Russian is using in Ukraine, but there are Russian speakers in Ida-Viru County, which looks perfect for the carving-off tactic, so I’d guess that Ida-Viru is the place to watch. (Although, of course, Latvia could be targeted rather than Estonia, etc).

      Anyway, to gauge the plausibility of a move on Estonia, it is interesting to see what the locals think.
      Here’s a report on one person’s opinion. His reasoning is interesting — he says many Russian-speakers prefer the advantages of living in the EU, for example.

      “Ida-Viru County Unlikely To Be New Crimea, Says Businessman”
      http://news.err.ee/v/politics/c3de7c45-5ba7-4b09-8e1d-6f9a5ca237ea

        1. *I’m* the one who is saying that the parties might to go to war, and I’m the one who is looking on Estonian websites for clues, and yet I’m the one with my head in the sand? C’mon.

          1. (Just to be clear: I hardly think war is likely, but my position is that if a move is made on a NATO member, there will be a war, whereas Gregg’s position is that we will acquiesce. I suppose Gregg allows that Estonians will fight back, but I think that all of NATO would fight back, including using nuclear weapons if they were needed to ensure a victory.)

          2. “and yet I’m the one with my head in the sand? ”

            Yes.

            ” but my position is that if a move is made on a NATO member, there will be a war, whereas Gregg’s position is that we will acquiesce.”

            Not quite. Obviously reading is hard for you. I said NATO members will not go to war with Russia over Estonia. A Russian attack on Germany is a different matter. Unsure about Poland whether or not NATO would respond.

            “I suppose Gregg allows that Estonians will fight back, ”

            Of course but it would be futile.

            “but I think that all of NATO would fight back, including using nuclear weapons if they were needed to ensure a victory.”

            You are delusional….Nuclear war over Estonia?

    1. It’s the real lasting legacy of JFK. Politicians the world over noted the victory of style over substance. It’s what got Pierre Trudeau elected PM of Canada 45 years ago. The US is now going through what Canada went through 40 years ago.

      Lesson will be repeated until learned.

  11. “Obama is a foreign policy moderate. Most, if not all, of the criticisms of Obama’s foreign policy to be found on this blog are opinions regarding why the Obama’s foreign policy is too moderate. ”

    There is nothing moderate about Obama’s foreign policy. He unilaterally reduced our nuclear weapons, drastically cut all branches of the military, alienated allies, sided with countries and groups who view us as enemies, and on and on. Obama used our military to help Islamic militants overthrow the government in Libya, how is that moderate? Obama was minutes away from declaring a unilateral war on Syria without the UN or congress, how is that moderate?

    Obama wants to pull all American means of influence back into the homeland where he is focused on punishing his enemies and rewarding his friends. While he doesn’t believe in American Exceptionalism, he is very much a nationalist. There is nothing moderate about Obama.

    “I’m a mainstream Democrat, and the decision to go to war to defend a member of NATO strikes me as an easy one (with the understanding that this posture is the best way to prevent a war via deterrence.)”

    Perhaps our ties with NATO are still strong enough to force us to act but our security assurances did nothing for Ukraine, Egypt, or Iraq. Obama has shown that our alliances mean nothing. Our commitments mean nothing. There are no longer obligations that as a country we have to meet but rather the question of whether or not we live up to our obligations relies on whether or not the current President views those as his obligations.

  12. I hardly think war is likely

    The war has already started and is on going. The only question is who will stand up to stop it. Ukraine knows we talked them out of their nuclear defense (handing it over to Russia which has already threatened to use it.)

    They stopped in Georgia when they achieved their objectives. They will stop in Ukraine when they achieve more objectives (the ports in the Crimea being huge. They are also building a major naval base NW of Alaska giving them better access to the Pacific and before that making arrangements for naval bases to give them access to the Atlantic.

    Wars do not start with the first bullet. Wars start with strategic planning. It’s plain to see that Putin is already engaged in a game he intends to win in the next decade and beyond. Meanwhile Nero fiddles.

  13. In case anyone would like to read the transcript of Obama’s address in Estonia:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/09/03/obama-transcript-nato-will-defend-estonia-latvia-lithuania/

    Excerpt:

    As free peoples, as an alliance, we will stand firm and united to meet the test of this moment, and here’s how.

    First we will defend our NATO allies, and that means every ally. In this alliance there are no old members or new members, no junior partners or senior partners. They’re just allies, pure and simple, and we will defend the territorial integrity of every single ally.

    Today more NATO aircraft patrol the skies of the Baltics. More American forces are on the ground training and rotating through each of the Baltic states. More NATO ships patrol the Black Sea.

    Tonight I depart for the NATO summit in Wales, and I believe our alliance should extend these defensive measures for as long as necessary, because the defense of Tallinn and Riga and Vilnius is just as important as the defense of Berlin and Paris and London. (Applause.)

    During the long Soviet occupation, the great Estonian poet Marie Under wrote a poem in which she cried to the world, “Who’ll come to help? Right here, at present, now!” And I say to the people of Estonia and the people of the Baltics, today we are bound by our treaty alliance. We have a solemn duty to each other. Article 5 is crystal clear. An attack on one is an attack on all. So if, in such a moment, you ever ask again, who’ll come to help, you’ll know the answer: the NATO alliance, including the armed forces of the United States of America, right here, present, now. (Applause.)

    We’ll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you will never lose it again. (Applause.)

Comments are closed.