4 ms·

Perhaps not Belgium, but consider eastern Ukraine.

by andrewfong 12y ago

increment_i 12y ago
OK so any large nation that isn't Russia, China, Great Britain or the United States.
- meric 12y ago
  Just FYI Germany was providing training and equipment to the Chinese nationalists to fight at first against regional warlords and then the Japanese until 1941 when the tripartite pact was signed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_until_1941 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_until_1...
robryan 12y ago
And the Russia of today in relative terms is weaker than WW2 Germany militarily. The US is looking to disengage as much as possible from global conflicts. I think that they would be extremely reluctant to be pulled into a head on war against Russia/ China over a lot of 3rd countries.
- chris_j 12y ago
  Do not forget that, whatever the strength of Russia's conventional forces, Russia also possesses nuclear weapons. For that reason, it would be unthinkable for the West to fight a head on war against Russia.
  - robryan 12y ago
    I don't think that is really a factor, nukes only really come into it if you have an irrational regime that would rather be destroyed themselves than outright lose.
    - tobiasu 12y ago
      Russia has strategic as well as a tactical nuclear weapons. They have repeatedly stated that they will use tactical weapons to make up for any shortcoming in conventional forces. An example could be nuking a large staging area or aircraft carriers. There's nothing irrational about it, once war progresses this far.
      - fennecfoxen 12y ago
        Heck, part of NATO's defense strategy against the USSR was to have squads with Davy Crockett missiles stationed along the eastern front. If you're not familiar with those: it's a shoulder-launched device bearing the M388 atomic round. Range: around a mile. Kill radius: around a quarter mile. The premise is that when the Soviets decided to invade they'd lob a few of these at their forces and pin them down for a little while, so the rest of NATO could mobilize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
        breadbutt 12y ago
        > One of the most fervent supporters of the Davy Crockett was West Germany's defense minister Franz Josef Strauss, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Strauss promoted the idea of equipping German brigades with the weapon to be supplied by the US, arguing that this would allow German troops to become a much more effective factor in NATO's defense of Germany against a potential Soviet invasion. He argued that a single Davy Crocket could replace 40–50 salvos of a whole divisional artillery park — allowing the funds and troops normally needed for this artillery to be invested into further troops, or not having to be spent at all. US NATO commanders strongly opposed Strauss's ideas, as they would have made the use of tactical nuclear weapons almost mandatory in case of war, further reducing the ability of NATO to defend itself without resorting to atomic weapons.[7] It seems that even at that time, the US wanted to keep the conflict nuclear-free as much as possible.
  - bayesianhorse 12y ago
    It looks like nukes are off the table. In any way, Russia is invading countries who don't possess nuclear weapons, and uses unflagged troops. From that logic it would be illogical to retaliate with nukes for attacks on troops that aren't yours... Putin is deliberately isolating conflict regions from each other and from the bigger picture, somehow hoping that no single attack is worth it for NATO to actually retaliate in any form. So far, as long as no NATO countries are in immediate danger, this works extremely well.
waps 12y ago
Well they pretty much got Crimea, don't they ?
- hbbio 12y ago
  Crimea also has been historically part of Russia/USSR until 1954. (I'm French, just stating)
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    Yeah, so?
  - leoc 12y ago
    Germany had similar claims on some of that land it grabbed and might have been able to hold on to: notably the Sudetenland. So Russia's historical claim on the Crimea doesn't really break the analogy.
  - Zuider 12y ago
    Alsace and Lorraine have been historically part of the Germanic world (though it is quite true that the populations preferred to remain French). Can I take it that you won't have strong grounds to object if Merkel sends a few divisions over the border?
  - krzyk 12y ago
    Not quite. It was part of Russia from 1783 till 1918 (or so) then it was Part of USSR. But let's make it 1954 as you wrote, so it gives 171 years. Before 1783 Crimea was part of Ottoman Empire (Crimean Khanate), from about 1449. That makes 334 years. And before that Mongols ruled there from about 200 years. And even before it belonged partly to Kiev Rus' and Bizantium for another 300 years. So basing solely on the years (assuming that what you mean by historically) it looks like Crimea should go back to Turkey or split between Ukraine and Greece, surly not to Russia.
  - ajuc 12y ago
    Kalinigrad was Prussian. L'viv and Vilnius were Polish. Szczecin and Wrocław were German. That was only 80 years ago. 100 years ago there was no Poland, and no USSR. These cities changed hands every 50 years or less for last few centuries. It's useless to argue about these things. Basically whole C&E Europe is a huge barrel of powder. If you start to do this stuff (this is MINE because history) the powder will explode. That's why nobody (except Russia) do it. Even the worst nationalists in Poland don't actually want L'viv or Vilnius. Even though L'viv was a very important city for Polish culture and still 80 years later there are songs about how great a city Lwów was (French wouldn't understand, you only have one city ;) ). It was Polish San Francisco, and we don't want it back. That's because we know that we are only safe because we're past the WW2 era of petty nationalisms. We've learnt our lesson. Putin doesn't care - he knows EU is not united enough to react, so he basically replays Hitler 1938 strategy and he goes away with it. French traditionally don't want to die for Danzig(Donetsk this time), they even sell weapons to Putin. Great job, guys. It's very frustrating to see it in real life and see how useless and clueless western politicians are. Like nobody learnt anything from WW2.

Perhaps not Belgium, but consider eastern Ukraine.

increment_i 12y ago

OK so any large nation that isn't Russia, China, Great Britain or the United States.

meric 12y ago
Just FYI Germany was providing training and equipment to the Chinese nationalists to fight at first against regional warlords and then the Japanese until 1941 when the tripartite pact was signed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_until_1941 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_until_1...

robryan 12y ago

And the Russia of today in relative terms is weaker than WW2 Germany militarily. The US is looking to disengage as much as possible from global conflicts. I think that they would be extremely reluctant to be pulled into a head on war against Russia/ China over a lot of 3rd countries.

chris_j 12y ago
Do not forget that, whatever the strength of Russia's conventional forces, Russia also possesses nuclear weapons. For that reason, it would be unthinkable for the West to fight a head on war against Russia.
- robryan 12y ago
  I don't think that is really a factor, nukes only really come into it if you have an irrational regime that would rather be destroyed themselves than outright lose.
  - tobiasu 12y ago
    Russia has strategic as well as a tactical nuclear weapons. They have repeatedly stated that they will use tactical weapons to make up for any shortcoming in conventional forces. An example could be nuking a large staging area or aircraft carriers. There's nothing irrational about it, once war progresses this far.
    - fennecfoxen 12y ago
      Heck, part of NATO's defense strategy against the USSR was to have squads with Davy Crockett missiles stationed along the eastern front. If you're not familiar with those: it's a shoulder-launched device bearing the M388 atomic round. Range: around a mile. Kill radius: around a quarter mile. The premise is that when the Soviets decided to invade they'd lob a few of these at their forces and pin them down for a little while, so the rest of NATO could mobilize. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
      - breadbutt 12y ago
        > One of the most fervent supporters of the Davy Crockett was West Germany's defense minister Franz Josef Strauss, in the late 1950s and early 1960s. Strauss promoted the idea of equipping German brigades with the weapon to be supplied by the US, arguing that this would allow German troops to become a much more effective factor in NATO's defense of Germany against a potential Soviet invasion. He argued that a single Davy Crocket could replace 40–50 salvos of a whole divisional artillery park — allowing the funds and troops normally needed for this artillery to be invested into further troops, or not having to be spent at all. US NATO commanders strongly opposed Strauss's ideas, as they would have made the use of tactical nuclear weapons almost mandatory in case of war, further reducing the ability of NATO to defend itself without resorting to atomic weapons.[7] It seems that even at that time, the US wanted to keep the conflict nuclear-free as much as possible.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  It looks like nukes are off the table. In any way, Russia is invading countries who don't possess nuclear weapons, and uses unflagged troops. From that logic it would be illogical to retaliate with nukes for attacks on troops that aren't yours... Putin is deliberately isolating conflict regions from each other and from the bigger picture, somehow hoping that no single attack is worth it for NATO to actually retaliate in any form. So far, as long as no NATO countries are in immediate danger, this works extremely well.

waps 12y ago

Well they pretty much got Crimea, don't they ?

hbbio 12y ago
Crimea also has been historically part of Russia/USSR until 1954. (I'm French, just stating)
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  Yeah, so?
- leoc 12y ago
  Germany had similar claims on some of that land it grabbed and might have been able to hold on to: notably the Sudetenland. So Russia's historical claim on the Crimea doesn't really break the analogy.
- Zuider 12y ago
  Alsace and Lorraine have been historically part of the Germanic world (though it is quite true that the populations preferred to remain French). Can I take it that you won't have strong grounds to object if Merkel sends a few divisions over the border?
- krzyk 12y ago
  Not quite. It was part of Russia from 1783 till 1918 (or so) then it was Part of USSR. But let's make it 1954 as you wrote, so it gives 171 years. Before 1783 Crimea was part of Ottoman Empire (Crimean Khanate), from about 1449. That makes 334 years. And before that Mongols ruled there from about 200 years. And even before it belonged partly to Kiev Rus' and Bizantium for another 300 years. So basing solely on the years (assuming that what you mean by historically) it looks like Crimea should go back to Turkey or split between Ukraine and Greece, surly not to Russia.
- ajuc 12y ago
  Kalinigrad was Prussian. L'viv and Vilnius were Polish. Szczecin and Wrocław were German. That was only 80 years ago. 100 years ago there was no Poland, and no USSR. These cities changed hands every 50 years or less for last few centuries. It's useless to argue about these things. Basically whole C&E Europe is a huge barrel of powder. If you start to do this stuff (this is MINE because history) the powder will explode. That's why nobody (except Russia) do it. Even the worst nationalists in Poland don't actually want L'viv or Vilnius. Even though L'viv was a very important city for Polish culture and still 80 years later there are songs about how great a city Lwów was (French wouldn't understand, you only have one city ;) ). It was Polish San Francisco, and we don't want it back. That's because we know that we are only safe because we're past the WW2 era of petty nationalisms. We've learnt our lesson. Putin doesn't care - he knows EU is not united enough to react, so he basically replays Hitler 1938 strategy and he goes away with it. French traditionally don't want to die for Danzig(Donetsk this time), they even sell weapons to Putin. Great job, guys. It's very frustrating to see it in real life and see how useless and clueless western politicians are. Like nobody learnt anything from WW2.