[Archived] Is world war 3 about to kick off, starting in Ukraine

[Adam C]

I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of western governments. And as I said in an earlier post that last thing that this country needs is a war with Russia as it wouldn't be a happy ending for Britain.

I agree entirely. War is to be avoided at all costs and treated as the last resort in all occasions, especially with a nuclear superpower. I would be shocked if it came to a new Crimean war as we have no resources, no desire and no justification for war with Russia as this is entirely out of our sphere of influence. I guess it'd be like Russia declaring war on the UK for helping the Americans invade Iraq.

As for the hypocrisy of western governments it should be admitted that we have no choice when it comes to issues like "where do we get our energy supplies from?" In the absence of natural resources in the UK needs dictate that we have to maintain a cordial relationship with some questionable regimes.

If I am allowed a tenuous analogy it reminds me a little of the Raos and Rovers - we don't like them, their motives are murky and if we had any option we would have nothing to do with them. But if we fall out with them and terminate our relationship the lights will go out...

[Adam C]

And it is that time which allowed the West (via America, on that occasion) to win the war.

While the US have been a great ally to the UK over the past century I don't think it is fair to say that the West (via America) won the second world war. Russia pretty much stopped the German advance single-handedly, tying up vast amounts of resources and manpower and sapping morale both on the front and within domestic Germany that allowed the other allied powers to invade on the western front. The second world war (imo of course) was won by the courage, determination and unity of the three main allied powers working in tandem. It is churlish at best for any one of them to claim all the credit.

[Audax]

Of course the Communist regime also committed genocide against the Ukraine before World War II, the Bolsheviks were as bad as the Nazis. Some of the Bolsheviks were Jews, Trotsky was brought up on that.

While the US have been a great ally to the UK over the past century I don't think it is fair to say that the West (via America) won the second world war. Russia pretty much stopped the German advance single-handedly, tying up vast amounts of resources and manpower and sapping morale both on the front and within domestic Germany that allowed the other allied powers to invade on the western front. The second world war (imo of course) was won by the courage, determination and unity of the three main allied powers working in tandem. It is churlish at best for any one of them to claim all the credit.

Then why were the Germans in North Africa, Greece, Italy, everywhere all the same.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

While the US have been a great ally to the UK over the past century I don't think it is fair to say that the West (via America) won the second world war. Russia pretty much stopped the German advance single-handedly, tying up vast amounts of resources and manpower and sapping morale both on the front and within domestic Germany that allowed the other allied powers to invade on the western front. The second world war (imo of course) was won by the courage, determination and unity of the three main allied powers working in tandem. It is churlish at best for any one of them to claim all the credit.

WW 2 was mainly won on the Eastern Front by the Red Army. They destroyed the fighting power of the Wermacht. D-day and the Italian campaigns were side shows in comparison.

[Audax]

What helped Stalin was the Russian winter, Stalin had Generals executed as we've spoken about this before, he was no great Military leader or leader of the people like Churchill.

[Paul]

I'm not an expert on Putin, but it appears to me that he thinks the leaders of the Western powers are spineless and weak-kneed. He knows they won't counter his invasion of the Crimea, because they didn't with his invasion of Georgia.

At most some rhetoric will be thrown his way and some might impose sanctions of one sort or another. None of which will bother Russia. It has oil. Europe, especially if it continues to oppose fracking, needs oil.

So Putin wins again.

If we had spine (we don't), we wouldn't send in armed troops immediately but:

1. We'd extend the missile defense shield which was put on hold in 2009, at Putin's request.

2. We'd move a fleet into the Baltic and Black Seas on a full-time basis.

3. We'd re-arm Japan (which has extensive history with China and Russia).

4. We'd expel Russia from the G8.

5. We'd seize Russia's overseas accounts and the accounts of its citizen (this may adversely impact Chelsea FC but we'll just have to bear it).

6. We'd prohibit travel between USA/EU and Russia.

7. We'd expel the Russia team from the World Cup.

8. I would engage with the Ukraine, Poland and other neighbors of Russia to determine whether the will exists to counter-invade the Crimea and Georgia for the purposes of expelling Russian troops. If those countries offered significant combat and financial support (i.e. a million troops or more), I'd throw up to 500,000 American forces toward the project. The key is that we don't actually invade (though we might have to) but Putin sees a coalition of his neighbors preparing to fight and acting as if they will fight, push comes to shove. Nos. 1-7 makes no. 8 look more likely, especially if the conversation and process is very above board and open.

Does that make WWIII more likely? Maybe. But I believe demonstrating weakness makes WWIII even more likely. So we need to make Putin back up. And he will, one way or the other, if we act like men. Which we won't.

Arrogant and insulting? OK lets examine these proposals.

1. US missile defence shield - I know nothing of this so can't comment - other than it's presumably a military threat to Russia whether or not one terms it "defence."

2. Moving a fleet into those areas could be perceived by Russia as a military threat - couple with the intention to put 1.5 million troops into the arena

3. Re-arm Japan - another threat

4,5,6. Financial penalties and sanctions. Are you aware of the importance of trade to both Russia and Europe, in both directions, which would have significant impact on European economies. Alongside this Europe is heavily reliant on Russia for energy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26436291

7. Expel Russia from the World Cup - Putin must be shaking in his boots

8. Setting 1.5 million troops against Russia is aggressive to the point one could not blame Putin for feeling Russia was threatened under such circumstances. There are, or were, 16,000 Russian troops in the Crimea and you suggest countering this with a force 100 times stronger. Hardly a proportional response.

As for all this "we" terminology. This is a European problem with potentially huge consequences,economic or military or more likely both. So yes to suggest America should tell Europe how to deal with the problem is arrogant and to suggest those looking to take a non-aggressive approach are weak-kneed is insulting. The Ukranian / Crimean issue needs to be resolved through discussion and diplomacy not aggression and sabre rattling.Shooting people rarely solves a problem.

You seriously believe Putin would not see 1.5m troops as a threat which he would not respond to? To take things to this level is utter lunacy and a typical attitude of a nation populated by individuals whose first thought is to shoot first and ask questions later. The last thing this problem needs is the United States throwing it's weight around, again. Fortunately it seems your President is taking a level-headed approach.

[Paul]

1. Arrogant and insulting? I thought I was pointing out the obvious. Twice within a decade, Russia has invaded another European nation. I predicted Russia will get away with it this time, as it did last, as the Western powers (including the USA) are too weak-willed to do anything about it. We'll soon see if I am right, but if I am correct its a sad state of affairs where supposedly rational human beings believe the truth is "arrogant and insulting".

2. I believe I have traveled extensively compared to many, including: Japan (6 months), Philippines (6 months), S. Korea (6 months), Norway (3 months), Scotland (1 month, two 2 week trips), Mexico (about 1 month), England (10 days) and Canada (roughly a weekend a month for about 10 years). I have also lived in about 8 of the 50 American states. Now what does my travel, or lack of travel, have to do with my observation the Western powers will do little or nothing to Putin for his invasion of the Crimea?

3. I could care less about the feelings of others toward my country. What I care about is that other countries KNOW that if they screw with America or an American ally that there will be hell to pay. Incidentally, this world view of mine greatly benefited the UK in the past and may benefit it in the future, so don't be so quick to hope the Yanks make a habit of staying home.

4. It seems to me that balance of your post supports the assertion that Europe is weak. It is likely that the USA is weak also (at least under President Obama), but I hope to be proved wrong. If Putin's invasion of Crimea (and previously, Georgia) results in a net benefit to Russia, he'll do it again and again. When do you suggest that the line in the sand be drawn?

We had better examine this as well.

1. Yes we will see the outcome. A peaceful one will be a victory for the weak-kneed and weak-willed. A far superior approach to military threat and force.

2. I'm interested by your travel experience. It seems despite this you have learnt little about other cultures and retain the attitudes so typical of many Americans especially the two-thirds with limited or no experience of the rest of the world. My impression, based on the attitudes you present here, was you have never set foot outside the US, clearly I was wrong.

3. You don't care how America is perceived by the rest of the world? That in itself is interesting and displays a form of arrogance. "Hell to pay" is hardly surprising really. Effectively you are saying America doesn't care what others think or feel but if the country or its interests are in any way threatened we will bomb the offender. Marvellous.

4. The balance of my post is to highlight Europe knows and has experienced the consequences of war on far too many ocassions. Americans have never experienced war on home soil. Yes you've lost thousands of troops overseas but your home population has no experience at all. Millions of Europeans have so if this makes us a bit weak-kneed in wishing to avoid actions which could lead to war so be it. America is far too ready to fight its wars in someone else's backyard so please don't be too surprised when I say, for me, American intervention of the type you describe is not welcome. Your country is one of the most aggressive on the planet yet constantly dresses this up to be the opposite.

[somersetrover]

Of course the Communist regime also committed genocide against the Ukraine before World War II, the Bolsheviks were as bad as the Nazis. Some of the Bolsheviks were Jews, Trotsky was brought up on that.

A common mistake the deaths in the Ukraine during the 30's were caused by a combination of poor climatic conditions and sabotage on the part of the kulaks in the face of the collectivisation of agriculture. And to call the Soviets as bad as the Nazi's is ridiculous as it was them who wanted an Anti fascist pact as early as 1936 at start of the Spanish civil war where Stalin sent troops to fight Hitler and fascism, however the French and British both refused. Also do not forget that during the war, 25 million people died and they were free to defeat fascism and 9 in to 10 German soldiers that died did so at the hands of The Red Army. The Soviets fought the Nazi's single handed for two years, whilst the west refused Stalin a second front which he continuously campaigned for. It was The Soviets who were responsible for the defeat of fascism and they also liberated Berlin and Auschwitz. Also Charles De Gaulle who was not a supporter of the Soviets even acknowledged that if it was not for the Soviets France would not have been liberated as in his words. They tore the guts out of the German war machine.

As for Trotsky and his fellow conspirators they all stood trial and were found guilty, but because they were found to be guilty the imperialist media calls them show trials. Zinoviev, Kamenev and other all confessed to having plotted with Trotsky to kill Stalin and other members of the Soviet leadership.

What helped Stalin was the Russian winter, Stalin had Generals executed as we've spoken about this before, he was no great Military leader or leader of the people like Churchill.

Stalin was loved by the people hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets of Moscow to pay their last respects to him and people were so desperate to see him one last time that several hundred people were killed in a crush. Also it was not the Russian winter that won Stalin the war it was his policies that won the war as by industrialising the country he built a country that in 1917 had no industry(and a country which had just suffered a humiliating defeat in WW1 and that was in economic turmoil) into a world super power by 1945 and defeated the Fascist forces, this was through his industrialisation programme.

[Baz]

Assets of quite a few Ukrainians who have fled the country in the past few weeks have been frozen, as several billion £s worth of national funds are "missing". Wonder if we have any new fit and proper owners on the horizon?

[neekoy]

The current stand in government of the Ukraine is not elected, it was taken in a violent coup and does not represent all of the Ukrainian people, may of which are Russian or identify themselves as Russian. Putin is right not to acknowledge them.

Anyone thinking that the US is "helping" Ukraine fight an evil regime is lost in the head, Crimea is run as an independent government of which over 50% of the people who live there are Russian citizens. Anyone expecting Russia to allow an extremist Ukraine regime who literally would rather see all Russians dead to come into Crimea and give up their warm water ports and possibly end up with a million or so people to end up fleeing is lost in the head as well.

The US know how much Crimea means to Russia, if Russia lose Crimea they are no longer a world military power, Putin isn't going to let that happen.

[Audax]

Despite threats to cancel the match, Ukraine soccer association president Anatoliy Konkov said Tuesday the game would go ahead.

''(We) reached a consensus to play the USA after all,'' Konkov said in a statement that also praised the American team. ''(They) stood behind us to protect the national interests and territorial integrity of Ukraine.''

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/news/20140304/ukraine-usa-friendly-united.ap/#ixzz2v3CUQL61

So it will go ahead in Cyprus.

http://www.ussoccer.com/

[Audax]

For the record, a lot of Israeli football clubs were established in the 1920s or before. Quite a few of them, the ones called Hapoel like Hapoel Tel Aviv actually have the Hammer and Sickle on their logo.

http://int.soccerway.com/teams/israel/hapoel-tel-aviv-fc/1207/

[Dreyski]

Denying the holodomor (Ukranian genocide of 1932-33) is on a par with holocaust denial.

Oh, and tens of thousands of people in North Korea were showing grief at Kim Jong-Il's funeral, guess he was an A1 dictator as well?

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

The current stand in government of the Ukraine is not elected, it was taken in a violent coup and does not represent all of the Ukrainian people, may of which are Russian or identify themselves as Russian. Putin is right not to acknowledge them.

Anyone thinking that the US is "helping" Ukraine fight an evil regime is lost in the head, Crimea is run as an independent government of which over 50% of the people who live there are Russian citizens. Anyone expecting Russia to allow an extremist Ukraine regime who literally would rather see all Russians dead to come into Crimea and give up their warm water ports and possibly end up with a million or so people to end up fleeing is lost in the head as well.

The US know how much Crimea means to Russia, if Russia lose Crimea they are no longer a world military power, Putin isn't going to let that happen.

What's the difference between a violent coup and an uprising of the common people? I would say the proportion of people who oppose the government, and in Ukraine it seemed to be a strong majority. Whether they are Russian or think they're Russian, they live in Ukraine, their loyalty should be to the Ukraine government. What would the reaction be in Australia if England invaded because we thought the expats were getting a rough deal?

You're lost in the head with that second paragraph. The point of the revolution was to move Ukraine away from Russia and towards the EU. Which anyone who knows anything about Russia should view as an extremely wise and understandable attitude to take. Russia is a dictatorship, with an appalling state attitude to freedom of speech and the right to protest. 10 minutes watching Russian TV news gives the impression of a xenophobic, fear-mongering, extremist government. They're shoulder to shoulder with China as leading economic countries that are an embarrassment to enlightenment and intellectual progression.

Any powerful country that thinks they have the right to just invade their neighbour because of a fairly modest shift in its political stance is obscenely irresponsible at best and downright insane at worst. Can you imagine if the EU took an identical but opposite stance to Russia and decided Ukrainians in Ukraine now weren't getting properly represented? The title of this thread gives a good indication of what would happen. Russia are banking on everyone else not being as downright moronic and aggressive as they are, like a moron driver or a playground bully.

Your last sentence "Putin isn't going to let that happen", like you're in admiration of a guy standing up for himself, is somewhere between laughable and nauseating.

[yoda]

The current stand in government of the Ukraine is not elected, it was taken in a violent coup and does not represent all of the Ukrainian people, may of which are Russian or identify themselves as Russian. Putin is right not to acknowledge them.

Anyone thinking that the US is "helping" Ukraine fight an evil regime is lost in the head, Crimea is run as an independent government of which over 50% of the people who live there are Russian citizens. Anyone expecting Russia to allow an extremist Ukraine regime who literally would rather see all Russians dead to come into Crimea and give up their warm water ports and possibly end up with a million or so people to end up fleeing is lost in the head as well.

The US know how much Crimea means to Russia, if Russia lose Crimea they are no longer a world military power, Putin isn't going to let that happen.

Have they not promised early elections?

They gave it to Ukraine did they not?

[otto man]

A common mistake the deaths in the Ukraine during the 30's were caused by a combination of poor climatic conditions and sabotage on the part of the kulaks in the face of the collectivisation of agriculture. And to call the Soviets as bad as the Nazi's is ridiculous as it was them who wanted an Anti fascist pact as early as 1936 at start of the Spanish civil war where Stalin sent troops to fight Hitler and fascism, however the French and British both refused. Also do not forget that during the war, 25 million people died and they were free to defeat fascism and 9 in to 10 German soldiers that died did so at the hands of The Red Army. The Soviets fought the Nazi's single handed for two years, whilst the west refused Stalin a second front which he continuously campaigned for. It was The Soviets who were responsible for the defeat of fascism and they also liberated Berlin and Auschwitz. Also Charles De Gaulle who was not a supporter of the Soviets even acknowledged that if it was not for the Soviets France would not have been liberated as in his words. They tore the guts out of the German war machine.

As for Trotsky and his fellow conspirators they all stood trial and were found guilty, but because they were found to be guilty the imperialist media calls them show trials. Zinoviev, Kamenev and other all confessed to having plotted with Trotsky to kill Stalin and other members of the Soviet leadership.

Stalin was loved by the people hundreds of thousands of people lined the streets of Moscow to pay their last respects to him and people were so desperate to see him one last time that several hundred people were killed in a crush. Also it was not the Russian winter that won Stalin the war it was his policies that won the war as by industrialising the country he built a country that in 1917 had no industry(and a country which had just suffered a humiliating defeat in WW1 and that was in economic turmoil) into a world super power by 1945 and defeated the Fascist forces, this was through his industrialisation programme.

Uncle Joe was loved? Not as bad as the Nazi's? Ye gods! That's the biggest load of communist propaganda I've read in years. I take it you're a party member comrade?

[Steve Moss]

I believe we've already list on Crimea, but these two articles hit the nail on the head as to why:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/03/06/russia-blows-past-obamas-off-ramp/

"Putin cares about the economy, and Russia’s economic weakness is one of the permanent disadvantages that hobbles Russia at every turn—but the effect of any of the likely western sanctions on Russia is probably less serious than many of his opponents would wish.

As for other trade sanctions, the disunity and economic selfishness of the western response has made the West look ridiculous. France will deliver warships, Germany will buy gas, and Britain’s banks are open for Russian business. Putin must be quaking in his boots at this awesome display of resolve."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-obamas-inaction-enables-putins-grab-for-ukraine/2014/03/06/c4222690-a55f-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_story.html

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

I'm not an expert on Putin, but it appears to me that he thinks the leaders of the Western powers are spineless and weak-kneed. He knows they won't counter his invasion of the Crimea, because they didn't with his invasion of Georgia.

At most some rhetoric will be thrown his way and some might impose sanctions of one sort or another. None of which will bother Russia. It has oil. Europe, especially if it continues to oppose fracking, needs oil.

So Putin wins again.

If we had spine (we don't), we wouldn't send in armed troops immediately but:

1. We'd extend the missile defense shield which was put on hold in 2009, at Putin's request.

2. We'd move a fleet into the Baltic and Black Seas on a full-time basis.

3. We'd re-arm Japan (which has extensive history with China and Russia).

4. We'd expel Russia from the G8.

5. We'd seize Russia's overseas accounts and the accounts of its citizen (this may adversely impact Chelsea FC but we'll just have to bear it).

6. We'd prohibit travel between USA/EU and Russia.

7. We'd expel the Russia team from the World Cup.

8. I would engage with the Ukraine, Poland and other neighbors of Russia to determine whether the will exists to counter-invade the Crimea and Georgia for the purposes of expelling Russian troops. If those countries offered significant combat and financial support (i.e. a million troops or more), I'd throw up to 500,000 American forces toward the project. The key is that we don't actually invade (though we might have to) but Putin sees a coalition of his neighbors preparing to fight and acting as if they will fight, push comes to shove. Nos. 1-7 makes no. 8 look more likely, especially if the conversation and process is very above board and open.

Does that make WWIII more likely? Maybe. But I believe demonstrating weakness makes WWIII even more likely. So we need to make Putin back up. And he will, one way or the other, if we act like men. Which we won't.

Speechless at the recklessness promoted in that post Steve Moss.

Sending an American Warship into the black sea at this moment in time is another wholly kean idea too.

[thenodrog]

Speechless at the recklessness promoted in that post Steve Moss.

Sending an American Warship into the black sea at this moment in time is another wholly kean idea too.

Steve?.......

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

What more to say theno

[Steve Moss]

Speechless at the recklessness promoted in that post Steve Moss.

Sending an American Warship into the black sea at this moment in time is another wholly kean idea too.

We are sending a warship (a destroyer) into the Black Sea. http://rt.com/news/us-warship-black-sea-966/

Allegedly this was planned before the Crimea incident. Either way, its a start.

I don't see it as reckless, Simon. I see it as educating Putin.

By the way, I like the video, Theno.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Speechless at the recklessness promoted in that post Steve Moss.

Sending an American Warship into the black sea at this moment in time is another wholly kean idea too.

Its no more reckless than Russia and China have behaved in the last couple of decades, in fact its still considerably less reckless.

The problem is the same problem you get everywhere in life, from the smallest scale to the largest. If you've got a bully throwing his weight around at school, will tolerance and a lack of reaction placate him or encourage him? Lets not pretend that words do a damn thing where Russia and China are concerned. The leaders of these countries are hard, ruthless, aggressive alpha male types. They couldn't give a damn about "aggressive rhetoric" etc. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to how they conduct their affairs, in fact its probably all they can do to restrain themselves from openly laughing at it.

So bearing that in mind, there always comes a point where real backbone is needed. I'm all for world peace and avoiding confrontation where it might work, but I get the impression after the hysteria and moaning about the Iraq war in this country that a sizeable number of people would rather we never make any international move that could possibly anger someone somewhere in the world ever again. Well you do that and the thick, ignorant bullies win.

I'm fully behind America when it very occasionally throws some of its considerable weight around in defence of western values. In case anyone's forgotten about their defence budget, America could squash Russia and China like a bug if it actually wanted to take the gloves off, so all the griping about the west going over the top is pretty ridiculously out of perspective in my opinion. Most of the time they, and Nato, are the very definition of restraint whilst these egotistical sadistic little upstarts play their own version of the Risk board game.

[somersetrover]

Its no more reckless than Russia and China have behaved in the last couple of decades, in fact its still considerably less reckless.

The problem is the same problem you get everywhere in life, from the smallest scale to the largest. If you've got a bully throwing his weight around at school, will tolerance and a lack of reaction placate him or encourage him? Lets not pretend that words do a damn thing where Russia and China are concerned. The leaders of these countries are hard, ruthless, aggressive alpha male types. They couldn't give a damn about "aggressive rhetoric" etc. It doesn't make a blind bit of difference to how they conduct their affairs, in fact its probably all they can do to restrain themselves from openly laughing at it.

So bearing that in mind, there always comes a point where real backbone is needed. I'm all for world peace and avoiding confrontation where it might work, but I get the impression after the hysteria and moaning about the Iraq war in this country that a sizeable number of people would rather we never make any international move that could possibly anger someone somewhere in the world ever again. Well you do that and the thick, ignorant bullies win.

I'm fully behind America when it very occasionally throws some of its considerable weight around in defence of western values. In case anyone's forgotten about their defence budget, America could squash Russia and China like a bug if it actually wanted to take the gloves off, so all the griping about the west going over the top is pretty ridiculously out of perspective in my opinion. Most of the time they, and Nato, are the very definition of restraint whilst these egotistical sadistic little upstarts play their own version of the Risk board game.

How exactly has the PRC behaved recklessly in the last couple of decades, I don't except Russia have there action is just in Crimea just as it was in South Ossetia but I know what you believe is reckless by them, however why you have mentioned the PRC is bewildering. America and Britain have been the countries behaving recklessly, invading countries, starting wars and trying to force a regime change around the world. And its the right wingers like you that say the Malvinas should remain British as that is what the people want but you are condemning Russia despite the fact that the people of Crimea want to be a part of Russia.

And if you really believe the America's could squash the Russians and Chinese you must be stuck back in the 1980's America are a waning power, they are reducing their defence spending and in economic turmoil, whereas each year Russia and the PRC increase their military spending and are in far better financial situation particularly the PRC due to its Socialist policies. Also the Americans have been fighting in Afghanistan for 13 years with victory no way near in sight. So goodness knows how their military would fair against well organised and well equipped military like the Russian and Chinese ones are. In fact I do know exactly the same as when they came up against well organised and equipped militaries in Vietnam, The DPRK and The Cuba, they went running back home with their tails between their legs after humiliating defats, in fact it would be even worse than that as the PRC and Russian armies are far bigger and even better equipped than those were.

[Steve Moss]

Somerset Rover:

You have a very interesting world view.

America's defense spending equals the next ten nations in the world combined, including the PRC. In exceeds the PRC by about 3-4 to 1. America would have to do a lot of declining for the PRC to reach something resembling parity.

By way of example, America has 19 commissioned (though only 10 active) aircraft carriers (with an additional 1 in reserve, 1 undergoing sea trials, 3 more under construction and 1 more being planned). Russia has 1 (with 1 under construction and 1 planned). China has 1 (with 2 more under construction and 4 planned). China's current carrier is fairly primitive. The carriers it intends to build are sufficient for regional strength projection but won't be able to compete with America's on a 1-1 basis as they are very far behind on carrier technology and methods.

And American technology being what it is, our carriers (and ability to project force) are massively larger than the competitions. Though slightly out of date, here's an interesting graphic representation of America's ability to project naval power as compared to the rest of the world. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

As a somewhat amusing anecdote, it wasn't until 2012 that a Chinese pilot managed to land an aircraft on their seaborne aircraft carrier. All other practice has been on simulated land-based flight decks. So far as I'm aware, this supposed feat has not yet been duplicated. It currently uses it carrier for helicopters and the like.

And if you think either Russia or China would survive long once we swept their ships from the seas, think again.

By size, America has the 2nd largest military in the world (behind PRC), all of whom are volunteers.

24% of the American male population are military veterans. As an aside, I'm one of them (USMC).

America has more than twice the number of adult males who are fit for military service as compared to Russia and has three times the population reaching military age. China has more bodies (about twice the active duty military, and many times the population), but we have more ways to kill them. For example, we have nearly 6x the number of aircraft compared to either China or Russia.

And though it isn't often discussed, America is surrounding its potential rivals with BMD (Ballistic Missile Defenses). You can look it up, but there are good reasons we withdrew from the ABM treaty. Our capabilities in this area dwarf our nearest rivals.

Every leftist pundit has been predicting America will flee the battlefield since Vietnam. And, to date, they've been proven wrong.

As to Vietnam, you are deluding yourself if you think that it is an indicator of American weakness. Vietnam was finished the second we decided to treat it as a war to be won. We never did, for a variety of idiotic reasons.

As to your criticism of America's projection of strength over the last couple of decades, you should consider we don't act alone- unlike some powers (such as your bosom buddies, the Russians). We spend a lot of time building a consensus before we act, which I don't really mind even as it frustrates me (as I think it makes the problem worse) as, perhaps, we'll maintain our close alliances with nations such as the UK and develop reliable allies in India and Japan which may counter-balance our long term loss of strength.

You may think this is me being a chest beating militarist. You are wrong. I don't want to go to war with China or Russia or any other nation. However, I'm a pragmatist. If the Putins of the world think the force option is "off the table" then they won't be deterred by mere words. And Iran has proven that sanctions are of only limited utility. So yes, push comes to shove I would support putting some sort of boot to Russia, if diplomacy fails (which it will) and sanctions prove ineffective. But rest assured our current leadership is too weak and self-interested to do anything other than talk.

So "peace" will be preserved. And in the meantime, you'll notice Russia and China are building up their military strength. This is not for purposes of challenging America (which is a generation or two away, if not longer) but to bully their regional neighbors. They know we likely won't act, so whether it is China pushing Japan or its South Seas neighbors or Russia bullying Eastern Europe, they'll get away with it which means we'll get more of the same.

But you are right about one thing. Eventually our strength will decline. It's the nature of things. But I don't have a lot of confidence that what comes after us will be better. In the meantime, we should at least try to do what's right with the resources we have.

[thenodrog]

We are sending a warship (a destroyer) into the Black Sea. http://rt.com/news/us-warship-black-sea-966/

Allegedly this was planned before the Crimea incident. Either way, its a start.

I don't see it as reckless, Simon. I see it as educating Putin.

By the way, I like the video, Theno.

Did you Steve? Good..... diverting the thread somewhat but you'll like this one too I think.