Russia has been noticing it for years. If Russia would fight better for the right of russians in Baltic countries then there would be no spread of this facsist plague... But instead of invading a defenseless country russians prefer to tell about democracy weaknesses in these Baltic countries. If there was a legitimate power in Ukriane then Russia would talk to them. But sinse there is no better proof of their legitimacy besides words from corporate media there is no sense to talk to them. If Latvia or Lithuania or Estonia loses the government then it would make sense for Putin to protect those who will ask for it. But not until then. Why don't they allow 25% of their people to use their language and to have all the civil rights that a citizen of other nationality has?
Taxcutter says: No you couldn't. Up until recently the US maintained armed force to keep Putin in check, but Hussein Obama unilaterally disarmed and forced US isolationism. Now that the US is voluntarily on the sidelines, europe is on its own and they couldn't handle Serbia or Libya without US help.
Likewise America couldn't handle third-world Afghanistan. When you actually meet another force with the capability of Russia we'll see how far American bombast lasts...
Taxcutter says: In all three cases, the stupidity of restrictive ROE becomes apparent. I cannot imagine Andrew Jackson or FDR tolerating restrictive ROE like we had in Afghanistan. They would have handled the Afghans the same way the Mongols did - just kill Afghans until the resistance stopped.
You're assuming that Russia is simply going to stop at the Ukraine. That's what people said about Hitler and Poland too.
Nonsense. Vietnam, to take one example, where you threw everything your mighty technology could muster at the Vietnamese, and you were still defeated. I hear this 'our hands were tied' excuse for incompetence all the time.
The communists did not get Thailand or the rest of SE Asia as they wanted, just as they did not get Japan after the Korean War ended in a stalemate.
Rubbish. Your only remaining alternative was nuclear weapons because you had exhausted all your conventional possibilities-including the use of chemicals. I wonder how China would have responded to American nuclear weapons going off all over their neighbour.
I talked not about the times of Russia after 1990. At that time we would be able to make nuclear terrorism as North Korea does from time to time. But I tell about the times of USSR when James Forestall couldn't keep up the pressure, e.g. USSR could invade. But prefferred to stay with its borders.
It's army was half the way to british chanel. And that was the best army at that time. Of course Stalin wouldn't throw a nation that suffered such big losses into a next more tiring war but that was not the question. There always are consequences for starting a war and not starting it. The question was about the possibility. to start it... At least war officials referring to a 'dropshot' plan refer to a necessity to stop Stalin of its possible aggression against Europe.
In war, you risk losing if you don't have the will of your people back home. Even if you have numerical, technical, tactical, and/or strategic advantages, history has repeatedly shown that without the will of the people, a nation can still lose. In Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, the US did not have enough will to fight. The question becomes why not? In Iraq and Afghanistan, it was obvious that the will was there in the beginning. What happened to it? Troop casualty counters behind a small American flag in the corners of TV's is what happened. There were many actors within the US who were actively eroding the will to fight in all three wars including the MSM, politicians, Hollywood, and a large portion of the academic world. But I wouldn't rule out a leader who can gather and keep the will of the people to engage and win a war in the future.
They are very important: if the USA gives the image of a ruthless power who treats it's enemies like trash, that would give the rights to other nations to do the same with their enemies, and even worse. Things can excalate very quickly without rules you know... you better behave moderately, expecially in these crucial times.
The time may come (like in 1939-1945) where behaving moderately is a luxury one cannot afford, and war will have to be waged ruthlessly as a matter of survival.
