Posted on 05/17/2022 4:39:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
The globalist/neocon/deep-staters need to protect their borders - in Ukraine, Syria, Somalia, Finland, etc....
The massacres of millions wasn't bad enough but also led to a resumption/continuation of war through 1945.
Such alliances do not allow cooler heads to prevail. In my silver years I find myself much more of an isolationist and want us out of NATO. None of our Eurosnot allies will do squat if Russia tries to occupy Alaska.
Are you serious?! I mean: Really?!
In fact Russia would probably be allowed to keep Alaska on the basis it’s a rotten option but still preferable to MAD.
Nope. You've got to draw a line in the sand (or in this case: snow). If we let them take Alaska, the Yukon Territory would be next, then British Columbia, etc.
Regards,
There is also the psychological / political effect of embarrassing Putin in the eyes of his people. That shouldn't be underestimated. The perception would be that his actions are achieving exactly the opposite of their intended effect, and that Putin is incompetent, an abject loser. Good grounds for regime change, I'd say!
Regards,
Exactly. Peace through strength.
The USA is strong. USA + Europe, Australia, Japan, and South Korea is stronger.
This alliance block rules the world. Putin hates that as does China, but for us it has led to 7p years of peace and prosperity.
Good on Patrick B.
Yes, he’s a hollow shell of a man, but America still needs SOME people to point that we don’t need to be the protagonist/antagonist in every war. Even if it is genetically built into the US.
Americans are inherently warlike and spoiling for a fight - always have been, probably always will be. We need leaders and personalities to voice opinions to give us pause now and then.
> Use of WWII alliances as an example is unfortunate on Pat’s part. <
He actually wrote a book about that, ‘Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War’. In that book Buchanan argues that Britain should have just let Hitler take Poland. I find that to be naive, at best. But since we all now know about the extermination camps, perhaps Buchanan‘s view is better described as being repulsive.
> More applicable are the alliances prior to The Great War where foolishness by the Austro-Hungarians caused a string of events leading to ridiculous confrontations. <
I agree with that 100%. Not every enemy is a Hitler. And when they’re not, cool diplomacy is called for instead of lines in the sand.
Yes. Deadly serious.
If Russia - without warning - went into Alaska but didn’t do anything, America would do nothing at all beyond issue diplomatic protests. If it attacked s person on American soil, ditto. If it atracked a town then maybe America would mobilise in Alaska. If it went on an all out offensive, you’re stuck because you can either fire ICBMs or just focus on repelling the invasion. Without NATO that’s pnly a single front for Moscow to worry about.
Better to mobilise to defend, and open up other attack vectors to occupy Moscow’s attention.
The bigger problems are with politicians. Because of military oversight by a nonmilitary government.
You apparently have no idea what American military forces routinely do when even only single Russian aircraft violates our airspace, let alone what would happen if Russian boots landed on American soil!
Please! Get help! You are in La-La Land!
Regards,
"Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting of battle." - General George S. Patton
Regards,
> Americans are inherently warlike and spoiling for a fight - always have been, probably always will be. <
I wish I knew who said this, but’s here’s a good quote: “Democracies should go to war reluctantly, and fiercely.”
Too often we disregard one - or both - parts of that saying. The latest example is with Bush II. He invaded Iraq for no good reason while at the same time doing “nation-building” in Afghanistan. Bush II went to war casually, and weakly.
And here’s where I give great credit to FDR. He followed the above saying almost perfectly. He is perhaps the only president to have done so.
Oh, I know what you do.
Nothing that Russia hasn’t already priced in.
Which is why, if Russia put boots on the ground in Alaska, it’ll do so knowing exactly how you’ll respond. And it’ll use diplomatic levers. The curse of being constrained by due process and civilian oversight is, it makes a single country predictable.
What it can’t predict is the NATO response. Including American action through NATO infrastructure.
We Brits have already been through this with the Salisbury poisonings, and assassinations. Use of chemical weapons on UK soil was causus Belli for a huge escalation but our government wouldn’t go there.
Trump would be unpredictable in similar circumstances - if he was the president.
I'm sorry, I still can't get over what you said about America doing nothing if Russian troops tried to occupy Alaska! Everything you've said after that just went in one ear and out the other!
The first Russian troop transporter even only nearing Alaskan airspace would namely be challenged by a wing of fighter jets before you could say "Jack Robinson!"
There would be no "diplomatic" response!
I suppose that a lone Russian soldier could try to float over on a dinghy by dark of night, and plant a tiny plastic Russian flag on some godforsaken islet in the Bering Sea, but... occupy?! Ridiculous!
Regards,
*So, you aren't American? Figures!
“...Turkey has what seem legitimate grievances with Sweden an Finland. Both apparently are harboring fugitives who were part of the attempted coup. They will not extradite them back to turkey for trial...” [bert, post 14]
The Turkey of 2022 is not the Turkey that joined NATO more than 50 years ago.
Dismissing the “fugitives” the Turkish government purportedly wants to capture by calling them “bad guys” is a stretch; PKK are less than perfect but the Kurds are preferable to Turkey’s current government.
Demanding moral perfection from allies before we condescend to help them is not merely a fool’s errand, it comes with more than its share of condescension.
I suggest you do a bit more reading, sunbeam. Because Alaska and Hawaii were the only two edge cases in the USA.
Hawaii remains a technicality omitted from the full coverage of NATO - Like the Falklands for the UK, NATO Article 5 isn’t binding if it’s attacked.
Alaska is a tad different as is isn’t omitted (statehood since ‘59 + north of the Tropic of Cancer). NORAD airspace is monitored and Russian aircraft cab be buzzed if they get too close. But like I said, that is entirely predictable posturing, and so that’s priced in before the incursion. When it happens, as it did only six months ago, Russia isn’t half as bothered by the buzzing as America is. What you call a challenge, they call willy waving.
There is still a gray area. A small Russian force crossing the Bering Strait could land on either island. And then travel to the Alaskan shore. Don’t talk about one man on a dinghy, that’s just silly. But a tactical unit could do it.
As long as they don’t touch a US Military installation, America wouldn’t go medieval on their a55e5. Also... There is no official defense strategy for the Arctic Circle.
I seem to remember Sarah Palin talking about it one time.
You "know" this... how?
Regards,
“Why? Because NATO membership means the world’s strongest power, the United States, under Article 5 of NATO, would go to war against Russia, should it cross Finland’s borders.”
The whole premise is off by 95%. It is NATO - 30+ countries - that vows to defend each other. Premising the whole argument on the erroneous case that it is all and only about “what the U.S. will do” is a giant error. If it were all and only about the U.S. Russia really would not worry, as it could theoretically race through multiple countries in Europe (as Germany did) before U.S. engagement could change anything. But that is not the case in today’s world. And Finland? They beat the Soviet Union in the last military defense of their country.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/
We must protect the homeland of Linus Torvalds.
The Free Republic website runs on Ubuntu Linux (nginx/1.18.0 (Ubuntu)). No Linus Torvalds, no Freeprs.
Precedent. Lots of. As sure as “bears shit in the woods”. America doesn’t overreact to small incursions of little consequence. The buzzing of Russian jets is just for show.
America held out on joining 2nd World War despite over a year of American assets being impacted by that war. Only when Pearl Harbor was deliberately bombed was it roused from its slumber.
Ya think the entire Pacific Fleet would have fully mobilised if Japan had simply set up a base camp for recon? Where do you think the Japanese Air force got their intel from? Telepathy? Chances are Axis agents were ALREADY on American soil gathering intelligence and if America knew about them it didn’t do anything to tip off the Germans or Japanese.
And there’s the politicians who remind us every five minutes that one Mustn’t Poke Ze Bear, Comrade, think America should stay out of Ukraine and Europe no matter how far Tonto Putin goes. Ya think there are no American assets worth saving in Europe? They clearly don’t.
Same thing.
If they care that little about their own people in Europe, what makes you think they care more about some small Rusdian incursion into a big whole lotta nothing on the borders of the Arctic Circle?
The day MTG calls for all out war on Russia in response to them testing the USA with a snall land/sea incursion into a barely used bit of Alaska is the day Sleepy Joe wakes up cured of dementia.
good article,Buchanon is right.
any US troops in Euro should have always been paid for by the Euro-peeings.. We need to stay out of other countries civil wars and Let europeans fend for themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.