I have noted often the inability of most people to think two-three steps ahead when commenting on issues. People demand Social Security be fixed…but vote for Democrats. People demand liberty – but vote for Social Conservatives. People demand better schools, then join the union rubber-stamp we call the PTA. Logic, history, consequences and forethought seem to play no part in their behavior.
In a recent discussion, another noted that he had identified the same problem; he termed it lack of an “integrated world view.”
My purpose in this post is to integrate a few – only a few – issues re: Russia and Europe.
Russia seems ready to bite off more of Europe – and why not? They have A) Resources – natural and human, B) Little ability to defend themselves, C) No willingness to defend themselves.
Europe’s response? Just as in 1914, Poland and others are mobilizing their armies.
In understanding Europe, one first must understand its history. This is – easily – the most warlike continent and people on the planet. Europe has caused more wars than all other continents and peoples, combined.
Between the Fall of the Roman Empire in Europe in the 3rdCentury AD, and 1945, there was not ONE 50-yr period of peace across Europe. Not ONE. And it was Europeans – proto-Germans – who sacked Rome, causing the fall of early republican government and the end of a millennium of Great Power peace under the Roman Republic
From 1945 – 1989 Europe was at peace for the first time since the Fall of Rome. Why? Because Europeans were sandwiched between two Great Powers. America on one side and the USSR on the other. Sure, the USSR had the Warsaw Pact and American had NATO – but both were noise; the might was Russian and American. And Europeans kept quiet.
Then in 1989, the Wall fell, the Pact evaporated, and Europeans went back to killing each other. It is, LITERALLY, all they know how to do.
Today, 25 years on, after a decade of killing as Europeans destroyed Yugoslavia (forcing the intervention of America to stop a mass killing Europeans didn’t care enough about to stop themselves), Russia has begun gobbling Europe.
The second thing one must understand to comprehend Europe is demographics. Basically, Europe died in the Somme. At no time since has any European country had a birthrate above replacement (fertility = 2.1), and since 1945,many of those countries – Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and on, are in what demographers call “suicide spirals.” Simply, NO nation ever has come back from the fertility of these countries: 1.2, 1.4, etc. (Japan is even worse; ALL these nations are depopulating themselves purposefully. Oh, well.)
Europe lacks a future not because of Russia – but because of their own choices in fertility. Europeans’ unpopulated future will happen regardless of who is minding them – either their Russian or EU masters.
The third part of this is the traditional American response to Europe’s wars. Although George Washington counseled us to stay out of them, and although our LAST Progressive academician president campaigned on staying OUT of Europe’s wars, Woodrow Wilson (also a racist warmonger) skipped all that campaign nonsense once he had the office (sound familiar?), and created humanity’s bloodiest century. (Is Obama about to repeat this? If the GOP has their way and convinces Obama to intervene in Europe, it sure seems like it…)
Let’s integrate these three things to see what should be done re: Russia v. Europe.
Russia is a European country. Europeans like to go to war. Unless stopped by others (America), they always go to war.
European demographics – suck. Russia has the worst on the planet outside Japan. But since it’s Russia attacking and (unthinking) Americans demanding we stop them, ask yourself this: Why should we stop Russia?
If Europeans don’t care enough about their OWN future to populate it, wouldn’t it be extraordinarily imperialistic to go fight to save them from their own voluntary decisions?
What purpose, exactly, would be served by sacrificing thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even hundreds of Americans – and likely millions of Russians and Europeans – to keep free the future – the unpopulated future – of Europe? Seriously – who will there be to care since Europeans have not had enough kids for five generations to populate that future for very much longer…?
But – we can’t let Russia takeover Europe!
Should Russia gobble past Crimea, which she seems ready to do, can she be stopped conventionally? No.
Remember – America lost 400,000 men in WW2; Russia lost 20 MILLION. Are they willing to fight?
Asked & answered.
On to the third issue: American intervention. Can Europe fight back? Nope. Their conventional forces are smaller than the combined police departments of a half-dozen major American cities. They lack transport, air refueling, MREs, logistical support – and men to fight.
More than that, they lack the will.
They haven’t even agreed on financial penalties for Russia’s grabbing Crimea; do you REALLY think they’ll go to war over Poland? Again? With NO KIDS? In the midst of the self-inflicted – and totalitarian – economic disaster of the euro?
Of course not.
Which brings us to American intervention and idiots like McCain who seem to have learned NOTHING from history, and whose every problem is a nail for their military hammer.
Does anyone seriously think that Obama will support strong sanctions on Russia? Any evidence? He has unilaterally weakened the only major regime sanction (Iran) we had going, and it took weeks to interrupt his golf schedule to say anything at all about Ukraine.
Will Putin willingly retreat because Obama tells him to? Of course not. Why would he? Obama has proved himself on every occasion (Libya, Syria, Ukraine…) to be all bluster; big talk – no stick.
Putin is an alpha male, and there simply is no way he will ever allow himself to be seen retreating from – well, whatever Obama is, but certainly a far weaker ego and character; he can’t even lie convincingly to an adoring public and tanked media. (And Obama’s Secretaries of State have been a global embarrassment.)
Can American beat Russia conventionally? Nope. Is anyone really willing to sacrifice their one or two sons to “save” a depopulating Europe? Americans had 3-5 sons in 1940. Losing one, or even two, which was rare, didn’t kill the family tree. Few families today – and almost no Progressives – have more than 1-2 sons. Our demographics are only marginally better than Europe’s (and only in Red States – the demographics of Blue states are identical to Europe’s; regardless of nationality, Progressives don’t believe in the future enough to populate it – which is why it is simply insane to leave them in charge of education, taxes, policy, etc.). American moms & dads won’t send – ever again – the millions of sons it would require to defeat Russia.
Which leaves… nuclear weapons.
STILL willing to entertain intervention in Europe?
OK. You still think Russia must be stopped; if the evil is not contained now, they’ll come after us next.
Not intervening in Europe is not the same as not defending America. Our military is more than ten times the size of that of Russia,including more than 20 times their nukes. Russia won’t attack us. Putin is aggressive, not stupid. Once he has Europe, to whom will he sell his stuff if not Americans? No one.Who will feed him if not us? No one.
Insofar as other countries? Like it or not, Darwin was right. If a species – or a State – is unwilling or unable to defend its place in the food chain against a stronger species – or State, dying for them isn’t going to change anything.
Europeans don’t want to be here – back to demographics. So what logic compels us to die to keep their unpopulated future free? None. Will Russia move east? Nope. China won’t allow that. South? If Russia killed the –stans it would be good for the entire planet… and are ANY Americans willing to die to keep shariah alive? Nope.
OK. Russia only can be stopped with nukes. Still we must stop them?
Fine – France and Britain have nukes, and Germany and Poland have the technology. Let THEM exchange nukes with Russia. Are you REALLY willing to sacrifice NYC for Ukraine? DC for Krakow? Seattle for Lithuania? Really?
Europeans make war. Let them.
Do you know what Russia’s biggest problem would be if it conquered Europe? Feeding it. They can’t. It would destroy whatever economy they had left.
And, 20 years on, what would Europe look like? Just as it will absent American involvement in ANOTHER of their wars: A mostly depopulated continent, mostly un-free. Whatever lives are lost by American intervention will be utterly wasted.
So, seriously – intervene in a Russian war on Europe?
Suppose for a moment that Russia does conquer Europe. That Russia is successful in taming that most warlike continent. So?
In 20 or 50 years – they’ll be right back at it. Whatever sacrifice is made to defend Europe will be for naught. It would be as stupid – on a far larger scale – as invading Afghanistan and pretending anything will ever change.
In the Roman Republic, like America, an empire built through alliances, rather than conquest, by a basically isolationist people who defended allies (often with only a warning against those who would break the peace, much like America before the Baby Boomers), Greeks – like Old Europe, could not stop warring with each another. Rome constantly had to go over to settle them down. Finally Rome tired of this. After a particularly galling event in a major city of Greece that had decided time and again to ignore Rome’s warnings to be peaceful, Rome sailed over and told all the inhabitants to get out of town by noon the next day, that they’d remove all the artwork to a safe place, and raze the town.
And they did.
Like the Greece of those times, Old Europe cannot stop warring. Perhaps it is time they – metaphorically – were razed.
Nothing else has worked.
Perhaps better the Russians than our kids.