Tag Archives: freedom

Russia vs NATO

Posted on by
Reply

What’s Russian President Vladimir Putin’s next move, after he’s finished absorbing Ukraine?  I offered some general thoughts here.  Next up, or soon after next, are the Baltics, all of which are NATO members.

General Jack Keane (USA, Ret) had this to say about NATO’s capabilities vis-à-vis Russia:

NATO shouldn’t be taken lightly.  There are 4 million people under arms.  That’s not counting the United States.  With the United States, it’s over 5 million.  And the fact of the matter is the Russians have 1 million under arms.  So at some point, capabilities, quantities, matter.

Indeed, they do.  But what are those capabilities, quantities, really?

  • The UK doesn’t operate any actual aircraft carriers (the closest thing they have now is an assault ship).  An aircraft carrier, or a fleet of them, would only be of sometime use in the duck pond that is the Baltic Sea, anyway.
  • The Netherlands (with its unionized, weekday army) has disbanded its heavy armored division.
  • France and the UK have all of 200 main battle tanks.  Each.
  • Germany is cutting its troops to 180,000.
  • France has cut to 213,000 troops.
  • The UK has cut to 174,000 troops.
  • The US is cutting to 445,000 troops.
  • Poland—the only serious member on the continent (perhaps after the target Baltics)—has 100,000 active duty troops and less than 130 fighter aircraft.  They do have 1,000 aging main battle tanks.

Defense spending is falling off as a per centage of national GDP, too, with most member nations utterly failing to spend as much as 2% of their GDP on defense—nominally a requirement for NATO membership.

The effective force ratio NATO would be able to bring to bear against the Red Army, then, is of a piece with the force ratio a motley gang of Persians had against a relative handful of Greeks some 2,500 years ago, and they still had very much trouble breaking through.  NATO’s effective force ratio is of a piece with that enjoyed by a heavily armored French force that failed to break a relative handful of English archers some 600 years ago.

It’s not confidence inspiring.  Not for our side, anyway.

Big Brother

Posted on by
Reply

Three guys, two of whom parachuted from the top of 1 World Trade Center and the third a ground-based accomplice, have been arrested for the stunt.  They’re being charged with felony burglary, reckless endangerment, and jumping from a structure, with the last two being misdemeanors.

Yeah—jumping from a structure.

The burglary and reckless endangerment beefs, ordinarily, would be serious charges, and their legitimacy are what trials are for.  But jumping from a structure?  Really?  That’s just Big Brother, Government, making a law simply because it can.

On looking into the particulars, though, things don’t seem to get any more legitimate.  To the extent that the reckless endangerment was limited to the jumpers endangering themselves, Big Government has no legitimate interest.  Endangering the public, though?  The jump was at 0300.  Even in New York City, even around the Trade Center, how much public was there to be endangered?

Even the burglary rap, in this case, seems excessive.  This particular charge

entails being in a building illegally with an intent to commit another crime—in this case, breaking a 2008 city law against parachuting off buildings more than 50 feet tall[.]

They’re not even charging these guys with any attempt to steal something, which is what we usually think of when we think “burglary.”  Big Government is only using this charge to punch up the “seriousness” of their case.

“Sanctions”

Posted on by
Reply

European Union leaders are likely to approve a modest escalation in sanctions against Russia when they meet on Thursday to debate a response to the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea…add new names to the list of 13 Russians and 8 Russia-allied Crimean leaders who the EU subjected to an asset freeze and travel ban on Monday….

What’s the matter with sanctions on Russia, the nation, too?  Things like freezing Russia out of the international banking system, withdrawing European support for the development of Russian oil and gas fields, stopping the transfer of associated technologies moving to get oil and gas—and coal—for Europe from sources other than Russia?  Moves to supply Ukraine with non-Russian energy?  Certainly such moves would sting Europe, as well, but Russia’s economy is no larger than Italy’s, and unlike Italy—and the rest of the EU—Russia has no economy outside its oil and gas exports.

Unfortunately, US’ “sanctions” are just as weak, and the Obama administration is just as timid in the face of Russian aggression.

Putin has, in fact, responded with sanctions of his own: he’s barring nine American government officials, including Speaker John Boehner (R, OH) and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) from entering Russia.  This is an obvious, contemptuous parody of Obama.

Surrender, Again

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s Great Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, on the EU’s “response” to the Russian invasion and partition of Ukraine:

It’s important to send a very clear message that if there is further destabilization in Ukraine then there should be further wide ranging measures taken, and we’ve agreed tonight that we will task the European Commission to draw up those possible measures.

That’s it?  What about holding out for Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, Mr Prime Minister?

This is abject surrender.  It’s an insult to the courageous and strong British Prime Ministers of the past—Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher come to mind.  You, Mr Cameron, are unworthy of your nation.

Surrender

Posted on by
Reply

Under threat of sanctions from the US and Europe, the Russians have finalized their annexation of Crimea.  One of the targets of the US’ “sanctions,” Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, expressed his feelings about them in a tweet:

Comrade Obama, what should those who have neither accounts nor property abroad do? Have you not thought about it?  I think the decree of the President of the United States was written by some joker.

The “sanctions?”  They

freeze any assets the targeted individuals have under US jurisdiction, make it illegal for Americans to do business with them and discourage international banks and financial institutions from having relationships with them, administration officials said.  The officials, however, would or could not say if those targeted actually have assets in US jurisdictions.

Hence the joke.  Does anybody believe, given the length of time this administration has been nattering on about freezing personal assets that there are any left that we can “freeze?”  Other than the amateurs in the White House, I mean.

Meanwhile, Europe has done even less.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said Tuesday that leaders of the Group of Eight world powers have suspended Russia’s participation in the club amid tensions over Ukraine and Russia’s incursion into Crimea.

Travel bans and the freezing of a few personal bank accounts—yeah.  That’ll show ’em.

And echoing John Kerry’s pleas to Putin not to take US actions personally; we really don’t mean to hurt your feelings, ” German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier bleats that sanctions must leave “ways and possibilities open to prevent a further escalation that could lead to the division of Europe.”

Also meanwhile, Ukrainian government officials met with US lawmakers pleading for military aid—not troops, but arms and ammunition.

“They wanted arms,” [one of the US] lawmaker[s] said, “even recognizing that it could be cited by Putin as an excuse, a provocation for further military action by him.  They said Putin’s goal has never been Crimea; his goal is Kiev.”

But this administration already has said, “No.”

For all of this abject surrender in the face of Russia’s naked aggression, though, President Barack Obama is happy to meet with terrorists, directly and personally.  He even insists that any “peace” agreement be based on Israel’s pre-1967, and so wholly indefensible, borders.

In the final meanwhile, watch Iran and their nuclear weapons program and the People’s Republic of China and their territorial grabs in the East and South China Seas.