RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,175118,00.html

A good assessment. The United States should be rendering this advice to all of the former Soviet =Republics.

Lind has reminded us of the real "forgotten" conflict(s).

Lind conveintly forgot that Finland not only held out against the USSR in 1939 for almost 2 yrs, but won most of their battles against the Russians. But did not have the interbational help/backing to continue the war! Tha last time a nation tried to appease a stronger neighbor (Czeckoslavia vs German) the world turned their back until 1939, and that killed millions. The bear is rearming and wants to be a super power again by controlling the former satellite nations.

quote:

Originally posted by lovatscot:
Lind conveintly forgot that Finland not only held out against the USSR in 1939 for almost 2 yrs, but won most of their battles against the Russians. But did not have the interbational help/backing to continue the war! Tha last time a nation tried to appease a stronger neighbor (Czeckoslavia vs German) the world turned their back until 1939, and that killed millions. The bear is rearming and wants to be a super power again by controlling the former satellite nations.

If you are referring to the gallant Finnish defense in 1940 - It lasted three months and ended with their collapse.

If you are referring to their participation in the German Invasion - The only thing the Finns did was to reoccupy the territories that the Russians previously took from them - Which of course they had to return to Russia when they asked for an armistice. In other words, without the Russians having to deal with Germany, there would have been no war.

All the above being said, it IS a relevant example. The Russian couldn't turn on Finland, couldn't succesfully attack the place because they were tied up elsewhere...

Yugoslavia, a country occupied by the Germans DID resist using gurrilla war tactics for over four years - But they too were aided by an outside power(s), who did everything they could to help. And once again the Germans never had the ability to turn the full force of their arms on them.

So it would seem that these wars of resistance against an opponent with NO scruples can only be waged if that opponent has bigger things to worry about.

After all the aim is not to hold out for a few years, the aim is to win; to maintain your independence.

The Ukrainian rebelion against Stalin lasted three years, but was crushed - No help at all from the West.

Dave

I had barely finished the first paragraph when the author stated that.."They have little to fear in the short run, unless they duplicate Georgia's folly and attack Russia."...HUH!? ...This squishy analyst must be getting paid by Putin?!..Oh, I see he worked for Gary Hart, THAT explains everything.

In 25 - 30 years, Russia's negative population growth will have dropped to 70 - 80 million people...THAT is less than Yemen's Population! They will have enough trouble just protecting what they already have....NOW, if we tank the price of oil, they will be back digging rotting potatoes out of the ground. Think about it, have any of you seen any imported Russian product's of any substance? Nawww, I didn't think so. Putin is betting the farm on Russia's oil, negate that and their only income will be from exported vodka...that is, if they don't drink it first.

quote:

Originally posted by Highlander09:
In 25 - 30 years, Russia's negative population growth will have dropped to 70 - 80 million people...THAT is less than Yemen's Population! They will have enough trouble just protecting what they already have....NOW, if we tank the price of oil, they will be back digging rotting potatoes out of the ground. Think about it, have any of you seen any imported Russian product's of any substance? Nawww, I didn't think so. Putin is betting the farm on Russia's oil, negate that and their only income will be from exported vodka...that is, if they don't drink it first.

They are starting to level off their population decline. They have an aging population, and some decline should be expected. Right now they have a 140 million people.

I don't think it makes sense to make predictions of what they will do politically based on these fragile hypotheticals. They are NOT going to go away, and making believe they will is dangerous to our health.

As for Mr. Lind, he's an extreme Right Wing Conservative, but one whose head is not in the sand. I disagree with him on this one -

Life is rough. If I wanted someone to agree with all the time, let them hire me as a writer...

Dave

This "Iraqi model" defense would result in a Pyrrhic victory if ever used. You might get the Russians to cut their losses after a while, but your nation would be ruined in the process.
M. Gordon & B. Trainor wrote in their book Cobra II that the post-invasion resistance to the US was not a deliberate plan but an unintended byproduct of preparation for an insurrection.
I disagree with a lot of what W. Lind has to say, but I think it's incorrect to describe him as an extreme right wing conservative. Not because he's not extreme, at times, but because it's wrong to use the left-right, liberal-conservative, red-blue pattern to describe every opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by hoodedswan:
This "Iraqi model" defense would result in a Pyrrhic victory if ever used. You might get the Russians to cut their losses after a while, but your nation would be ruined in the process.
M. Gordon & B. Trainor wrote in their book Cobra II that the post-invasion resistance to the US was not a deliberate plan but an unintended byproduct of preparation for an insurrection.
I disagree with a lot of what W. Lind has to say, but I think it's incorrect to describe him as an extreme right wing conservative. Not because he's not extreme, at times, but because it's wrong to use the left-right, liberal-conservative, red-blue pattern to describe every opinion.

Whether deliberate or not, it is a model for post conquest resistance. In other words, a little country cannot stand up to a big one in a game of conventional war, but make it tough for the invaders, so that the cost of staying is more than the cost of leaving. Worked for the Afghans against the Russians.

Now as for Mr. Linds politics - You confuse President Bush with "Conservatism," and therefore critics of Mr. Bush, by definition, cannot be conservative, let alone "extreme" Conservatives.

Mr. Lind heads the Center for Cultural Conservatism, at the Free Congress Foundation, set up by Paul Weyrich. If you don't know who Wyrich is, Google him

What confuses you is that Mr. Lind doesn't believe in such things as "Conservative" Science, or "Liberal" Science, or that just because it's from a liberal source, it's "tainted." He writes about military science, which has no ideology.

And what also confuses you, is that he had less use for Mr. Bush, then I do, and I'm a leftist.

But then again, that could also be said about Pat Buchanon...

I respect Mr. Lind as a man who knows his trade, even though his cultural views are distastful.

Dave

Lind is correct in that the Baltic Nations are fielding "Toy" armies against a power such as Russia. They may be adequate for defense against their smaller neighbors but not against a large professional force. His assertion that an Iraqi style insurgent force would be the best model is also highly flawed. Several have pointed out that if, it became to expensive for the Russians to take and maintain control they would merely leave. Ruined infrastructure and in economic shambles with no formal leadership structure the target country would be ripe for fanactical takeover. Another "Taliban Afghanistan" in the making. I see only one viable option. Convince the U.S. that your nation is of vital strategic interest to the U.S. then lobby for a Division stationed on your soil.

quote:

Originally posted by falconrk:
Lind is correct in that the Baltic Nations are fielding "Toy" armies against a power such as Russia. They may be adequate for defense against their smaller neighbors but not against a large professional force. His assertion that an Iraqi style insurgent force would be the best model is also highly flawed. Several have pointed out that if, it became to expensive for the Russians to take and maintain control they would merely leave. Ruined infrastructure and in economic shambles with no formal leadership structure the target country would be ripe for fanactical takeover. Another "Taliban Afghanistan" in the making. I see only one viable option. Convince the U.S. that your nation is of vital strategic interest to the U.S. then lobby for a Division stationed on your soil.

Yes, but such a conflict would not take place in a vacuum. And losing your infrastructure is a small price to pay for keeping your freedom.

After all, our Revolution cost us most of OUR infrastructure; only the Tories complained...

Dave

Dave