"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (3 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

An observation on the emphasis of your words.

it is about NATO inciting a Putin with stupid actions and as such providing him a reason to go for the Ukraine

NATO did nothing, nothing at all to incite Putin. Putin acted in such a dictatorial manner, that nations originally in the Warsaw Pact and close to Russia chose to leave the close link with Russia and asked to join NATO.

NATO didn't automatically say yes. They asked them to meet NATO standards before agreeing to accept them into NATO. The fact that NATO declined the Ukraine's request to join NATO seems to have been forgotten.
 

That's well after Putin had started building up his invasion forces, and only two weeks before unleashing them. So it seems clear that even if NATO sending arms to Ukraine irritated him, it was not the reason he was stacking ~180,000 troops on Ukraine's borders, and holding exercises on one of those borders with Belorus.

And it still doesn't address my point that arming a nation already at war is probably an act of war and opens up the suppliers to attack - because in this case Putin didn't attack the suppliers, he merely renewed his attack against Ukraine.

Shall we next blame NATO for the invasion of Crimea? The only thing that happened was an autocrat friendly to Putin got overthrown in favor of one who looked westward. NATO extended no offer of membership, and even if it had, the right of a country to self-determination is pretty much settled in international law.

Sorry, but I still don't see any relevance at all to my point that shipping arms may be an act of war. If Putin thought it was in February, why didn't he attack NATO then? Why has he not attacked NATO in the intervening seven weeks? That's right, because he doesn't want a war with NATO, he wants to seize Ukraine.

This blaming NATO for Putin's bloody and disastrous decision to invade is odd, to put it mildly.

He can still attack resupply coming across the Polish border and probably have sounder justification than for his initial decision to renew his invasion of Ukraine, due to the historical precedents which have been set.

Jagdflieger said:
So was IIRC the US Army during the Vietnam war - why they never send in the professionals (more then a million?) - I wouldn't know.

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...

The US was absolutely set to send professionals and almost surely did. My dad was originally an air-defense artillery guy who worked on SAMs. He wanted to go fight and so cross-trained as a door-gunner on some helo or other, but -- thank Buddha -- got in a serious auto accident three or four days before shipping out in 1971, and so was disqualified from flight duty for the remainder of his time in the Army. He'd enlisted, not a draftee, in 1957.

********

Jagdflieger said:
After Hitler had militarily occupied the Rhineland in 1935 - and the French army would have reacted Hitler and his gang would have been history after 2 weeks if not within a week.

Regards
Jagdflieger
Click to expand...

A lot easier when the opponent doesn't have four or five thousand nukes. For that reason this is a really inapt historical analogue.
 
Germany occupied the Rhineland in 1936.

And France at that time was ill-equipped to do anything about it.

When Poland was invaded in 1939, France's promise to help defend her resulted in a half-hearted invasion of the Saar which lasted a week.

I seriously doubt France alone could have stopped Germany without the assistance of other nations. They couldn't even stop Germany from invading in 1940, when they knew well in advance that war was coming and had time to prepare.
 
GrauGeist said:
When Poland was invaded in 1939, France's promise to help defend her resulted in a half-hearted invasion of the Saar which lasted a week.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that was more a lack of political will than the forces arrayed against each other. The Germans had ten or twelve reserve divisions guarding the nascent Siegfried Line, while the French had eighty or so on their Eastern front along with plenty of armored brigades; and French tanks were generally superior to their German equivalents, which were scarce in the area.

The Third Republic, on the other hand, was riven with dissent, and the French found themselves in a war they did not want, making a promise they could not keep, to help Poland.

That last statement applies to the UK as well, for what it's worth.
 
Jagdflieger said:
Ukrainians are now paying the price for those sloppy just talking and weaseling Western NATO politicians.
Click to expand...

Wow! Someone has an unsettled beef...

Sorry, NATO doesn't have politicians. NATO is an agreement between signatory nations. I think in your vitriolic stance you completely misconstrue the structure and nature of the organisation and how it fits into each member state's national policy. Go do some homework, man.
 
Greg Boeser said:
And in the end, to ensure the victory over Fascist Germany, Poland and all of Eastern Europe was handed over as spoil to the Communist USSR.
Click to expand...

Possession is 9/10 of the law. In the war-weary world of 1945, not very many were willing to go on to fight the Red Army after Germany had already submitted. In that sense we might say that the Brits lost their war, America came out even-handed, and the Soviets won at a dear price.
 
One of the reasons that the western Allies weren't going to commit to pushing the Soviet Union back, was because the Pacific Theater was still raging and the best estimates showed they were looking at least another year of savage battles in order to defeat the Japanese.

This is why Patton was "shuushed". The powers-that-be wanted the fighting in Europe to be over so they could concentrate on the Pacific and they trusted Stalin to keep his word...
 

Right, and even after handling the last Axis power standing, who had the stomach for another five years or so of bloodbath? And that's just a ball-park figure.

Patton was backchannelled because he was good at war but not politics. I think we can all agree that was above his paygrade.

FDR's decision at Yalta to agree to Russian dominance in Eastern Europe sucked for the folks who got steamrollered by the USSR. But the two largest powers in the world tearing at each other for an undetermined period of time wouldn't do anyone any good.
 
Last edited:
Greg Boeser said:
And in the end, to ensure the victory over Fascist Germany, Poland and all of Eastern Europe was handed over as spoil to the Communist USSR.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between "handed over" and not being able to do much about harsh reality. Yalta was pretty much a rubber stamping of the situation as it then was - by the start of February 1945 the Soviet Union had already overrun almost all of Poland, Czechoslovakia and large parts of the Balkans, and was already well across the German border in some sectors.

Churchill did ask the UK's Chiefs of Staff in April or May 1945 to look at the possibility of offensive operations against Soviet forces to kick them out of Poland. Their conclusion was that even with the support of 10 reformed German divisions and partisans within Poland, there was little to no chance of a rapid victory. And, without a rapid victory, the next step total war vs Russia. Of which there was little to no chance of winning.

The assessment was called 'Operation Unthinkable', which probably gives you some insight into the thinking. Their assessment was overly generous in terms of actual Soviet combat manpower and somewhat overstates Soviet tactical airpower. Even so, the Western allies would have faced a manpower deficit of about 1:2 (after having enjoyed a manpower advantage against the Germans of nearly 3:1).

Even as spent as it was from the Battle for Berlin, the Soviet Army was still a formidable opponent in May 1945. And even at this time, there was paranoia about a Western attack - Soviet forces in Germany and Poland were stood back up temporarily in June 1945, on a defensive posture.

Of course, the UK assessment was performed without the knowledge of nuclear weapons.
 
nuuumannn said:
Sorry, NATO doesn't have politicians. ......
Click to expand...
Absolutely amazing and devastating for me to see, as to how little to nothing some people know and understand about NATO and it's setup.

NATO
National delegations to NATO

Each NATO member country has a delegation at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, Belgium, and contributes to the consultation process, which allows NATO to take collective decisions or actions.
  • A delegation represents its country at NATO and has a status similar to that of an embassy.
  • It is headed by an "ambassador" (also called "permanent representative"), who acts on instructions from his or her capital and reports back to the national authorities.
  • With all the delegations in the same building, they are able to maintain formal and informal contacts with each other, as well as with NATO's International Staff and International Military Staff.
  • Delegations can vary in size and are principally staffed with civil servants from the ministries of foreign affairs and defense.
The responsibility and task of each delegation is to represent its member country at NATO. The authority of each delegation comes from its home country's government. It acts on instruction from its capital and reports back on NATO decisions and projects.

Each member country is represented on every NATO committee, at every level. At the top, each member country is represented on the North Atlantic Council (NAC), the principal political decision-making body within NATO, by an ambassador.

The ambassadors are supported by their national delegation, composed of advisers and officials who represent their country on different NATO committees, subordinate to the NAC. Delegations can also be supported by experts from capitals on certain matters.

The delegation is headed by an ambassador, who is appointed by his/ her government for a period ranging between one to eight years.

The staff of a delegation can vary considerably in size, from the smallest at under half a dozen to the largest at about 200. It comprises civil servants from the ministries of foreign affairs, the ministry of defense and other relevant ministries.

The International Staff and International Military Staff at NATO Headquarters support the work of the delegations. The military arm of NATO has absolutely no say in regards
to the political decisions made by the politicians at NATO. They are instructed by those politicians as to what and when to do.

North Atlantic Council (NAC)

The North Atlantic Council (NAC) is the principal political decision-making body within NATO and is the ultimate authority at the head of a network of committees.
The Council also meets from time to time at the level of Heads of State and Heads of Government or Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Ministers of Defense.

The head of the North Atlantic Council (NAC) is presently the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg – Norway's former Prime Minister.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
1939 was far to late. the initiative to rid the world of the Nazis was during the military occupation of the Rhineland in March 1936 by the Wehrmacht.
Also one need to keep in mind that the Rhineland was under the jurisdiction of the League of Nations (forerunner of the UN). As such it would not just have been on the shoulders
of the French army.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Somehow you don't seem to get my point or view

It is undeniable that Putin, especially since he started to control the Kremlin - was going to implement the necessary steps to resurrect the Czarist Russian empire.

1. E.g. The more or less non-action by the West in regards to Georgia - was an indication to him as to how he needs to evaluate a response by NATO or it's member-states.
2. The Occupying/Annexation of the Crimea - again was an indication to him as to how he needs to evaluate a response by NATO or it's member-states.
The most important issue for Putin is to find "a legal basis" or "acceptable motives" towards the UN and NATO in order to justify his "expansions" and for all those to come.
And it's is Putin who acts and as such turning the cards by forcing everyone to come up with a delayed solution or reaction.

Exactly as Hitler - if I don't get the Rhineland I will.... if I don't get Austria I will.... if I don't get Sudetenland I will... and so on. Did the appeasement work? no and at the end it
became a hell of a war.

Just because he officially complained on 8th of February about increasing weapons shipment by NATO members towards the Ukraine - does nowhere imply that these shipments
took place a week before. It is known that the Ukraine received increasing weapon-shipments since his annexation of the Crimea.

Neither the shipment of weapons during peacetime nor during wartime's constitute internationally a declaration of war towards other parties. Putin never claimed that it was or is
a declaration of war towards Russia. But a clear sign that NATO is trying to change the balance of power and as such the Ukraine posing a danger to Russia. especially in view of
becoming a future NATO member.
As such the more he can convince the world (UN) that he Russia is being threatened - the more he gets encouraged to carry out his plans of extension.

The right way IMO would have been to make it absolutely clear to him, that the annexation of the Crimea is not validated by NATO and it's members or the UN. In order to prevent
further expansions (especially military conducted expansions) NATO and it's members will give all necessary (including conventional weapons) support towards the Ukraine. In case
of a military attack onto the Ukraine by regular Russian units, NATO or it's members will not hesitate to send own military units to support the neutral Ukraine.
Independently negotiations need to be conducted between NATO the EU and the UN with Russia to agree towards a solution in regards to Crimea. In return NATO would need to
confirm that it will refrain from expanding its membership or NATO troops being present in a neutral Ukraine. (Putin won't live forever).

In such a scenario NATO would have been the active player by setting clear demands and proclamations and not just arming the Ukraine, keeping the membership option open and as such continuing to play into Putin's hands and thus giving him a "justifiable" reason towards his own people and parts of the world (UN) to attack the Ukraine.

Even if after such proclamations Putin had attacked the Ukraine he would never get support by the UN or any country except maybe North Korea and NATO wouldn't need to discuss for month about what to do. And nuclear war? No way IMO - because Putin couldn't justify the use and as such he won't use them.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
Last edited:

The League of Nations? You mean the League of Nations that put a firm stop to Mussolini's Ethiopian invasion? The League of Nations that halted Japan in its tracks? That LoN?

Forgive me as I stifle a chuckle. The LoN was even more useless than the UN is today.

Comparing the reoccupation of the Rhineland and stopping it to this invasion of Ukraine and stopping it, is, as I wrote, inapt.
 
Last edited:

Explain how any of that is germane to my point about neutrals shipping weapons to a warring party being an act of war. Be specific, and trim your words -- a taut argument needs no wall of text.

Your assigning blame to NATO is an entirely different matter than the point I made, which you replied to. I see no reason to answer points "replying" to mine when they don't actually do so.
 
What the UN is or what it is capable off I think is a different discussion - in regards to Korea, and e.g. Desert-storm no body complained on the Western side.

The Rhineland occupation isn't in reference to the Ukraine issue but in reference to the Georgia incident - that is were Russian expansion more or less starts of.

Regards
Jagdflieger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Sisu
S
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
835
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
491
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register