DBWI: Kandahar Not Carpet-Bombed

[Queeney]

OOC: Damn, I really want to write a dystopic Ameriscrew TL now.

 

[Julius Caesar]

I thought "kebabs" were Turks. Or Bosniaks, I can't really remember the details of that meme.

Off Topic: I thought "kebab" referred to Muslims in general?

On Topic: The U.S., no matter what is does, will always be considered imperialistic. However, maybe they look less like jerks.

 

[Queeney]

The U.S., no matter what is does, will always be considered imperialistic.

Not anymore, of course; the US became pretty isolationist after the dissolution of NATO in 2002.

 

[EternalCynic]

Not anymore, of course; the US became pretty isolationist after the dissolution of NATO in 2002.

It's pretty hard to be imperialistic when you only control a fraction of your own supposed territory. Every state west of the Appalachians and south of Virginia still refer to the "unconstitutional Washington regime" and refuse to obey its laws or even send Congressmen or Senators.

The Rump USA's armed forces are still a very formidable force, more than enough to prevent the US from following China's fate in the 1930s. It just has more pressing priorities now.

 

[usertron2020]

Putin Uber Alles

OOC: Something tells me that the United States, which holds a permanent seat, isn't going to allow the UN to pass sanctions against it. Also, sanctions against the US would cause most of the other world economies to collapse as well.

OOC: As blind stupid as [SIZE=-4]president bush[/SIZE] & [SIZE=-4]vice[/SIZE]-President Cheney were about the UN, even they were not about to just give up the prize of the UN Security Council Veto. The entire circumstance of the Korean War and its aftermath was due, after all, to the Soviets being foolish enough to boycott the UNSC over a minor matter. They never made that mistake again.

OOC: No offence meant to you, EternalCynic, but I'm skeptical about this too. I think a loss of US influence - countries having US bases removed from their soil, more vocal anti-Americanism, and the American public being disgusted to the point of major internal political change being affected (maybe) - together with economic problems is highly likely, but I'm not sure about a complete collapse... Again, no offence meant, and I'm probably wrong - and a wrecked America is a fun sandbox to play in regardless, I'm just not 100% sure if bombing Kandahar= The Balkanised States of America. Mind you, I'm the fella who in one DBWI reckoned Sino-Soviet War in 1969 led to America going neo-isolationist, kind of.

OOC:Yeah, there tends to be these days the phenomenon of the ATLs and discussion threads about the Balkanized States of America drawing interested readers like sh-uh, I mean, honey does flies.

The US, no matter what it does, will always be considered imperialistic. However, maybe they look less like jerks.

When did that impression start, exactly? Bunker Hill? Or the landings at Plymouth and Jamestown?

Not anymore, of course; the US became pretty isolationist after the dissolution of NATO in 2002.

Yeah, after the refusal of any NATO support for W's going to war against the Taliban, its no surprise that the Neocons took their toys and went home. Too bad for the Baltics though. And the Ukraine. And the Caucasus, Poland, the Balkans, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, and Scotland!

 

[EternalCynic]

OOC: As blind stupid as [SIZE=-4]president bush[/SIZE] & [SIZE=-4]vice[/SIZE]-President Cheney were about the UN, even they were not about to just give up the prize of the UN Security Council Veto. The entire circumstance of the Korean War and its aftermath was due, after all, to the Soviets being foolish enough to boycott the UNSC over a minor matter. They never made that mistake again.

OOC: It's hard to believe that "minor matter" was the real reason the USSR didn't veto the UN entry into Korea. The real reason was Stalin hoped to see the nascent PRC and the US enter into a direct war to prevent the PRC from allying with the latter, which would have resulted in the USSR being entirely surrounded by enemies. That the PRC was not at the UN was a very convenient excuse.

IC: I don't think Putin would have been able to go any further than the ex-USSR. The Russian conventional force was still at its dreadful post-Soviet levels, and the European NATO members quickly formed the EDC anyway.

 

[Queeney]

Yeah, after the refusal of any NATO support for W's going to war against the Taliban, its no surprise that the Neocons took their toys and went home. Too bad for the Baltics though. And the Ukraine. And the Caucasus, Poland, the Balkans, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, and Scotland!

Huh? I don't get what you even mean. After NATO was dissolved, the EDC filled that gap quite successful. And for "took their toys and went home", haha, good joke!; it was us Europeans that kicked the warmongerers of the Bush regime out.

 

[usertron2020]

OOC: It's hard to believe that "minor matter" was the real reason the USSR didn't veto the UN entry into Korea. The real reason was Stalin hoped to see the nascent PRC and the US enter into a direct war to prevent the PRC from allying with the latter, which would have resulted in the USSR being entirely surrounded by enemies. That the PRC was not at the UN was a very convenient excuse.

OOC: So Stalin was orchestrating everything from the very start?

IC: I don't think Putin would have been able to go any further than the ex-USSR. The Russian conventional force was still at its dreadful post-Soviet levels, and the European NATO members quickly formed the EDC anyway.[1]

IC: Seems to me that the European NATO members simply dissolved the organization, and gave the US a timetable of departure. I don't recall anything about Bundswehr troops storming the fences at Wiesbaden Air Force Base.

1] OOC: I know this is a fantasy, but it truly IS a fantasy to expect the continent of Europe to suddenly start paying the full tally of bills for its own defence as well as for settling regional security problems by itself after minimal participation for the last several decades (compared to the US) as well as still keeping up its cradle-to-grave social safety net, which I've just noticed no one has mentioned yet (IIRC). THAT'S something that will be taking a hit if Europe is paying the bills for...what? Six fleet aircraft carriers!? Two of which will be in turn around re-supply and two more in major refit, leaving just two available for operations.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

1] OOC: I know this is a fantasy, but it truly IS a fantasy to expect the continent of Europe to suddenly start paying the full tally of bills for its own defence as well as for settling regional security problems by itself after minimal participation for the last several decades (compared to the US) as well as still keeping up its cradle-to-grave social safety net, which I've just noticed no one has mentioned yet (IIRC). THAT'S something that will be taking a hit if Europe is paying the bills for...what? Six fleet aircraft carriers!? Two of which will be in turn around re-supply and two more in major refit, leaving just two available for operations.

Why are six carriers unbelievable? That's only one more than Europe as a whole will have shortly - France has one, Italy has one, Spain has a ship that operates Harriers, and Britain will have two shortly. Six supercarriers would be ASB, but six carriers between multiple navies... Not that ASB surely?

 

[Perfidious Albion]

Too bad for the Baltics though. And the Ukraine. And the Caucasus, Poland, the Balkans, Austria, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France, and Scotland!

OOC: Don't be utterly ridiculous. American nationalists may be saddened by this, but Europe is not going to collapse into a pit of DOOOOM and EEEVIL RUSSIAN TAKEOVER if not for the glorious heroic Americans. No way is Putin just going to randomly invade the Baltic states, Poland et cetera. The French and British have nuclear weapons; Putin is not a suicidal fool.

The scenario of an American withdrawal means that the British and French, who remain great powers, have little choice but to take up the slack in Europe in the short term (in the long term they can get much of the rest of Europe to help)—and in spite of being far less powerful than the Americans, they still have enough nuclear weapons between them that if Russia invades the EU then Russia will have to say goodbye to Moscow, St Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara… you get the point. They don't have enough nuclear weapons to turn Russia into a radioactive car park as the USA does but Vladimir Putin isn't going to randomly decide "Hmm, Russia's biggest and most important cities… who cares about those? INVADE POLAND! MWAHAHAHAHA!"

I'm genuinely surprised to hear you, of all people, say something as bizarre as this; judging by previous conversations, I never would have had you pegged for a "weak cowardly librul socialist Europeans need strong Americans to look after them" kind of nationalist.

 

[Yuelang]

OOC:
Oh well, here comes the Ameriscrew wrecking crews.

First, I doubt that in the aftermath of 9/11, most of US public will actually care on what happened to those poor afghani, sure some liberals may hold demonstrations and such, but majority of US public demands blood and it will be there.

Second, even in the event that Europe pretty much condemn and abandon US, US will still have allies and this could in long terms actually result in Europe screw rather than US screw. Russia and China will be *much* more sympathetic to US, especially in light of massive withdrawal from NATO. And after that US won't restrain Russia if they want to go for Baltics and Eastern Europe.

Third, UN condemning US brutality will be vetoed by *again* Russia and China. Especially if Europe and other non US western nations forming a big anti-US block.

And if you want real Dystopian, enough liberal European snobbishness will result in US invasion of Canada and Australia, while Russia invade Europe and China invade Japan and such, practically giving into more dystopian Co-Dominion scenario where the three powers partition Earth

 

[usertron2020]

Why are six carriers unbelievable? That's only one more than Europe as a whole will have shortly - France has one, Italy has one, Spain has a ship that operates Harriers, and Britain will have two shortly. Six supercarriers would be ASB, but six carriers between multiple navies... Not that ASB surely?

OOC/IC (disagreement):

I was referring to supercarriers, but to say "carriers" without qualification is like bunching up Tarawa-class amphibious assault ships (complete with helicopters and yes, harriers) and Nimitz-class supercarriers. It's not apples and oranges, in military terms it's peas and watermelons.

I trust the British reference is to the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers? You know, the ones the British can't afford to stock with any planes? I picture in my mind SSBNs with no missiles ever procured, or as Winston Churchill once said regarding the lack of landward defenses for Singapore: "Building battleships without bottoms!"

ASB? Maybe more in the range of Unspeakable Seamammal. At least when the bills start come arriving.

 

[usertron2020]

OOC:
Oh well, here comes the Ameriscrew wrecking crews.

They do abound They like to pretend that anyone who challenges their opinions are "American Exceptionalists", despite the fact that AE's are most unwelcome on this site (by most members if not the mods) and there are plenty of other AH websites that are much more friendly to them.

First, I doubt that in the aftermath of 9/11, most of US public will actually care on what happened to those poor afghani, sure some liberals may hold demonstrations and such, but majority of US public demands blood and it will be there.

Second, even in the event that Europe pretty much condemn and abandon US, US will still have allies and this could in long terms actually result in Europe screw rather than US screw. Russia and China will be *much* more sympathetic to US, especially in light of massive withdrawal from NATO. And after that US won't restrain Russia if they want to go for Baltics and Eastern Europe.

Third, UN condemning US brutality will be vetoed by *again* Russia and China. Especially if Europe and other non US western nations forming a big anti-US block.

And if you want real Dystopian, enough liberal European snobbishness will result in US invasion of Canada and Australia, while Russia invade Europe and China invade Japan and such, practically giving into more dystopian Co-Dominion scenario where the three powers partition Earth

But we both know you cribbed that from George Orwell.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

OOC: Hey, I don't have it in mind to screw America - as a thought exercise, I like the idea of United States of Balkania, but I really hope it never happens IRL - and the only person I've seen posting on this forum (in my brief time here) who could be called an American Exceptionalist was...a sci-fi author in an old thread who seems to only have joined because his work was being discussed and who dislikes anything Transnational (I think you can guess who I mean ).

And TBH, I do think that the whole 'America collapses because of carpet-bombing Kandahar' is...unusual - again, I think that international coldness towards America is more likely (that was what this thread was when I joined in). OTOH, I don't agree that America is the only thing stopping Russia rolling across Europe - quite apart from the dismal condition of the Russian military, Britain still has the Vanguard submarines and France has the Force de Frappe. As long as they're in existence, even in an America-less world no sane nation is going to try invading Europe.

Also, they really can't afford to put planes on those ships? I thought they were forging ahead with getting F-35s, despite the attendant issues...

 

[usertron2020]

OOC: Don't be utterly ridiculous. American nationalists may be saddened by this, but Europe is not going to collapse into a pit of DOOOOM and EEEVIL RUSSIAN TAKEOVER if not for the glorious heroic Americans. No way is Putin just going to randomly invade the Baltic states, Poland et cetera.

The people of the Ukraine (what's left of it) would like a word with you.

The French and British have nuclear weapons; Putin is not a suicidal fool.

I never suggested Putin was going to turn into General Jack D. Ripper.

But are you arguing that France and Britain are going to go to nuclear war in the name of defending the Baltics, when they have large Russian minorities?

Are they going to let the nukes fly and go to WWIII-without the US deterrent ITTL-over defending Poland, when any chance of conventional military defense is impossible?

And Putin has shown a considerable propensity for flummoxing critics who insist he will "go no farther".

The scenario of an American withdrawal means that the British and French, who remain great powers,

Are you forgetting Germany? And why do lesser countries in Europe like Spain, Italy, the Low Countries and the Scandinavian countries (the Balkans I can understand, they're broke) get a relative free ride while the French and British pay all the bills? Sound familiar? And again: "Not with MY social safety net, you're not!" will be (and has been for years) the refrain when France and the UK even begins to do the Reagan buildup levels needed to fill such a massive security void over an entire continent, especially with the smaller countries refusing to make any real meaningful contributions.

...have little choice but to take up the slack in Europe in the short term

Politicians, and the voters, always have a choice. Defense policies are made by political leaders at the will of the people (swords versus plowshares).

...(in the long term they can get much of the rest of Europe to help)—

How? The history of Europe has shown that outside of the most powerful nations in Europe the lesser powers have a history of mucho butter over bullets, expecting the Big Boys to pay the bills. Again, and to deny the oncoming storm until its too late for them to do anything about it.

...and in spite of being far less powerful than the Americans, they still have enough nuclear weapons between them that if Russia invades the EU then Russia will have to say goodbye to Moscow, St Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara… you get the point.

Yes I do. And like any reasonable person, I know Putin would find arsenic in his vodka if he ever tried something so crazy. Since "Godfrey" has now become a Mortal Sin these days, how about this: How long would WWI have lasted if the Kaiser had declared war, on the same day, on every nation in Europe? Six weeks? Or enough time to break out the arsenic?

But we're not talking about Warsaw Pact versus NATO, are we? We're talking about an ATL with the USA severing/having had severed upon them all their treaty obligations in Europe, and a Russia that has shown NOT a propensity for continent-wide Barbarossa invasions, but a calculated (and sometimes mis-calculated) strategy of slice-by-slice absorption of neighboring border provinces, with ever growing encroachment on neighboring countries as a whole. In the case of the Ukraine, you now have a country that is economically unsupportable if Putin is allowed to keep those Eastern Ukraine provinces. Taken, under the guise of defending the Greater RusVolk.

They don't have enough nuclear weapons to turn Russia into a radioactive car park as the USA does but Vladimir Putin isn't going to randomly decide "Hmm, Russia's biggest and most important cities… who cares about those? INVADE POLAND! MWAHAHAHAHA!"

If the French and British governments are willing to see their own countries reduced to radioactive car parks in the name of defending Poland, yes. Because a) Russia's not launching a First Strike, and b) They don't need nukes to defeat Poland and whatever any EU forces that can be sent after D+1 (expect the usual denial-denial-denial from the politicians until the troops cross the border).

Britain and France can always come to the US hat-in-hands after the previous governments who had overseen the dissolution of NATO are sent packing, but they are not going to sacrifice their national existences for another country when they can always turn to Uncle Sucker to liberate that country at a later date.

And they'd get it too, since there's probably no country in Europe outside of the UK that has taken NATO and a pro-American attitude to their hearts more than Poland.

I'm genuinely surprised to hear you, of all people, say something as bizarre as this; judging by previous conversations, I never would have had you pegged for a "weak cowardly librul socialist Europeans [1] need strong Americans to look after them" kind of nationalist.

I'm sorry, but on the particular issue of whipping out your wallets and paying for the real money costs of a good solid national defense policy, including having the ability to force-project, Europe's record has been absolutely abysmal, with the exception of the UK, and in some cases (North Africa, Somali piracy) France.

1] I have the utmost respect for the fighting qualities of the British and French armies. The ability of their governments to stomach their usage, not as much. As far as the rest of Europe is concerned (outside of a few good exceptions), no stomach at all. One major terrorist strike and for the government it's "run away". [2] Thereby rewarding and encouraging such behavior in the future.

2] Spain

 

[usertron2020]

OOC: Hey, I don't have it in mind to screw America - as a thought exercise, I like the idea of United States of Balkania, but I really hope it never happens IRL - and the only person I've seen posting on this forum (in my brief time here) who could be called an American Exceptionalist was...a sci-fi author in an old thread who seems to only have joined because his work was being discussed and who dislikes anything Transnational (I think you can guess who I mean ).

Haven't got a clue as to the author. The only author I know of on AH.com whose had big success is Birmo, John Birmingham.

BTW, if all the people on AH.com who were accused of being American Exceptionalists actually WERE AEs, and constituted a proportional representation in the US population, then this country would have elected President Newt Gingrich. The accusation of "American Exceptionalist!" is a good tool for Anti-Americans who's weapons of debate in a particular argument have run out of ammunition. Telling somebody that their defense of their country, the USA, on a particular point in a discussion, is worthless because the said American is a mindless super-nationalist.

And TBH, I do think that the whole 'America collapses because of carpet-bombing Kandahar' is...unusual - again, I think that international coldness towards America is more likely (that was what this thread was when I joined in). OTOH, I don't agree that America is the only thing stopping Russia rolling across Europe - quite apart from the dismal condition of the Russian military, Britain still has the Vanguard submarines and France has the Force de Frappe. As long as they're in existence, even in an America-less world no sane nation is going to try invading Europe.

Well, Great Wars are often started when one side keeps pushing one baby step at a time, with the other side continually retreating in the name of "diplomacy" and "giving peace a chance". Then the aggressor crosses a line that cannot be crossed (Poland? Germany?), the defender MUST fight, and the aggressor refuses to believe the defender won't just retreat "yet again, as they always have before". Then the conflagration begins.

Also, they really can't afford to put planes on those ships? I thought they were forging ahead with getting F-35s, despite the attendant issues...

Christ, the USA can't afford those f------ F-35's! I wouldn't wish those turkeys on any country. Wait-a-minute. Maybe we could leave a half-dozen of them on the Russian border, late at night? They'll blow half their national oil reserves trying to deploy those damn white elephants.

 

[theg*ddam*hoi2fan]

Haven't got a clue as to the author. The only author I know of on AH.com whose had big success is Birmo, John Birmingham.

BTW, if all the people on AH.com who were accused of being American Exceptionalists actually WERE AEs, and constituted a proportional representation in the US population, then this country would have elected President Newt Gingrich. The accusation of "American Exceptionalist!" is a good tool for Anti-Americans who's weapons of debate in a particular argument have run out of ammunition. Telling somebody that their defense of their country, the USA, on a particular point in a discussion, is worthless because the said American is a mindless super-nationalist.

OOC: John Birmingham? No, I enjoy his stuff - he's one of the few ISOT-type authors who I've found really studies the social as well as the technological changes and differences between eras. The one I'm talking about is Tom Kratman, author of Caliphate and a novel about not-Hilary-Clinton-at-all turning the US into a fascist dictatorship but being thwarted by brave Texans... I'm sure to talk to he's a friendly enough guy as long as you don't talk politics, but his books...

My point had been, though, that on threads I've read the American denizens of AH.com have always seemed to be patriotic, sure, and in some cases conservative, but never nationalist or exceptionalist - if that was the case, wouldn't the majority of TLs here be American-centric? And I really hate people who torpedo debate by trying to make the other person's position worthless with accusations like that

Anyway, sorry for going on - there was a DBWI somewhere in here?

 

[Queeney]

The only reason why Russia is acting more aggressive lately is because the US (and NATO along with it) is surrounding it more and more militarily. This is the same what the Soviet Union tried in Cuba 1962, and we all know how the US reacted to it back then.

And all this "THE US IS THE ONLY ONE DEFENDING EUROPE!", "WE PAY ALL THEIR BILLS!", "RUSSIA IS TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD, RAWR RAWR RAWR!", etc. is the lowest, most ridiculous crap right out of the neocon's rhethoric box.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

The people of the Ukraine (what's left of it) would like a word with you.

Ukraine, not part of NATO, not part of the EU. Great example—exactly analogous to invading Poland or the Baltic states.

I never suggested Putin was going to turn into General Jack D. Ripper.

But are you arguing that France and Britain are going to go to nuclear war in the name of defending the Baltics, when they have large Russian minorities?

Are they going to let the nukes fly and go to WWIII-without the US deterrent ITTL-over defending Poland, when any chance of conventional military defense is impossible?

Yes. For the same reason why the USA would.

And Putin has shown a considerable propensity for flummoxing critics who insist he will "go no farther".

This is the sort of thing that idealists tend not to understand. Putin's strategy has not been offensive; on the contrary, it has been defensive. He has not been trying to expand his sphere of influence in Europe, or even trying to keep it at the same level; he has just been trying to keep down the amount that he is losing. Ukraine was in Russia's sphere of influence; then suddenly it was not and Putin tried to salvage as much as he could from it.

It sucks for the Ukrainians, of course, but let's not pretend that that's even remotely comparable to an aggressive invasion of an EU member.

Are you forgetting Germany?

Whose military strength is totally comparable to Britain and France, since Germany is a nuclear power.

Oh. Wait.

I have no interest in discussing conventional military power; what matters is the nuclear weapons.

And why do lesser countries in Europe like Spain, Italy, the Low Countries and the Scandinavian countries (the Balkans I can understand, they're broke) get a relative free ride while the French and British pay all the bills? Sound familiar? And again: "Not with MY social safety net, you're not!" will be (and has been for years) the refrain when France and the UK even begins to do the Reagan buildup levels needed to fill such a massive security void over an entire continent, especially with the smaller countries refusing to make any real meaningful contributions.

Nuclear weapons are all the security they need. Russia invades, they get a bunch of nuclear weapons in the face—so Russia's not going to invade.

This attitude is basically the product of the military-industrial complex, suggesting that they need huge armies of tanks and planes and suchlike as if that were still relevant to war between nuclear powers. It's not. If the USSR and the USA had gone to war in, say, Able Archer, all those tanks and planes and whatnot would be a waste of money; nukes fall, everybody dies. No need for tanks or planes, just the ability to shatter cities at the touch of a button.

Politicians, and the voters, always have a choice. Defense policies are made by political leaders at the will of the people (swords versus plowshares).

You seem to be projecting the atmosphere of what people do in a peaceful environment to what people do in an environment with your hypothetical EEEEEVIL hyper-expansionist Russia.

Actually your mentality reminds me quite a lot of Nazi Germany (not in the racism, genocide et cetera, obviously, but in the assessment of the 'weakness' of democracies), in assuming that democracies are weak because they don't want war so they will never stand up to expansionist dictators. That worked for Hitler for a little while, then they figured out that he wasn't going to stop and they did stand up to him because they felt under threat. Your hypothetical Hitler-esque Putin (as opposed to the real Putin) would find out the same lesson.

How? The history of Europe has shown that outside of the most powerful nations in Europe the lesser powers have a history of mucho butter over bullets, expecting the Big Boys to pay the bills. Again, and to deny the oncoming storm until its too late for them to do anything about it.

They don't need to; the Big Boys will pay the bills. Britain and France, even in an environment without your hypothetical Hitler-Putin trying to expand into the EU rather than just keep hold of the informal empire he already has and without losing the protection of the USA, have proven that they are willing to continue to pay for a nuclear deterrent, and that's what matters.

They could have an army a million strong or none at all; what matters is the ability to flatten Moscow and St Petersburg if Putin attacks. They don't need to increase their defence budget any more than it already is.

You're essentially arguing that in an environment of extreme threat the British and French will be unwilling to do what real life has proven that they are willing to do even in an environment of minimal threat. This is not a sensible argument.

Yes I do. And like any reasonable person, I know Putin would find arsenic in his vodka if he ever tried something so crazy. Since "Godfrey" has now become a Mortal Sin these days, how about this: How long would WWI have lasted if the Kaiser had declared war, on the same day, on every nation in Europe? Six weeks? Or enough time to break out the arsenic?

But we're not talking about Warsaw Pact versus NATO, are we? We're talking about an ATL with the USA severing/having had severed upon them all their treaty obligations in Europe, and a Russia that has shown NOT a propensity for continent-wide Barbarossa invasions, but a calculated (and sometimes mis-calculated) strategy of slice-by-slice absorption of neighboring border provinces, with ever growing encroachment on neighboring countries as a whole. In the case of the Ukraine, you now have a country that is economically unsupportable if Putin is allowed to keep those Eastern Ukraine provinces. Taken, under the guise of defending the Greater RusVolk.

Russia can get Ukraine and Belarus, sure. But if it starts attacking EU members (NATO no longer existing in this scenario), the EU can't allow that. Britain and France are obviously safe no matter what happens (regardless of your ridiculous suggestion of Russians in Scotland), but the other EU members need the EU to be a workable shield because if there's nothing protecting Poland or Estonia then there's nothing protecting, say, Germany either, and Germany won't allow that.

Why is the reasoning any different from there being a USA involved? It's not like conventional military strength matters much here. Russia could, hypothetically, attack the Baltic states under the assumption that the USA wouldn't get involved; but in practice no-one in Russia would be stupid enough to take such a risk because of the very high risk of mutual nuclear annihilation. The equation if there's just the British and French, instead of the USA, is exactly the same.

If the French and British governments are willing to see their own countries reduced to radioactive car parks in the name of defending Poland, yes. Because a) Russia's not launching a First Strike, and b) They don't need nukes to defeat Poland and whatever any EU forces that can be sent after D+1 (expect the usual denial-denial-denial from the politicians until the troops cross the border).

The same argument could be made equally for the USA, you do realise? "If the American government is willing to see its own country reduced to a radioactive car park in the name of defending West Germany, yes. But the USA would never have actually launched nuclear war if the Soviets invaded West Germany."

It's equally foolish both ways.

Britain and France can always come to the US hat-in-hands after the previous governments who had overseen the dissolution of NATO are sent packing, but they are not going to sacrifice their national existences for another country when they can always turn to Uncle Sucker to liberate that country at a later date.

And they'd get it too, since there's probably no country in Europe outside of the UK that has taken NATO and a pro-American attitude to their hearts more than Poland.

You seem to have this weird presumption that if there's the USA then Russia won't attack the Baltic states because it knows the USA is strong and will retaliate with massive retaliation (i.e. massed nuclear weapons), but if it's the British and French then Russia will be perfectly happy to attack the Baltic states on the assumption that they won't fight back—because, yes, Putin is really stupid enough to take such a risk. There was never any real chance of the West using massive retaliation for Ukraine, which was neither an EU member nor a NATO member, any more than we were likely to obliterate the Soviet Union over Hungary or Czechoslovakia. But Poland and the Baltic states are a whole different ball game.

In all honesty, I think this assumption on your part comes more from knee-jerk American nationalism than from any rational analysis.

I'm sorry, but on the particular issue of whipping out your wallets and paying for the real money costs of a good solid national defense policy, including having the ability to force-project, Europe's record has been absolutely abysmal, with the exception of the UK, and in some cases (North Africa, Somali piracy) France.

The UK and France are great powers, yes.

They don't need any more national defence than they already have. They have nuclear weapons. All they need to do is have nuclear weapons, and Putin isn't going to attack them; he would have to be completely insane to even think of it. Hence why I have such contempt for your idea that without the USA there would be Russians in Scotland.

 

[Amakan]

IC:
In a hindsight, it was a horrible decission, especially being that it was later found out that not only was Al-Qaeda absent at the time and they didn't even have biological or chemical weapons either.

Powell's presentation at the UN (including that now infamous map that supposedly showed Al Qaeda's network of underground chemical plants, laboraties, barracks and armouries), Rumsfeld's smug press conference and Bush' 'victory' speech will taint the US image for decades to come.

Between Afghanistan, Iraq (including previous sanctions), Sudan and Iran (and their aftermaths) over one million people died (Some argue the number is even higher, around 2 million).

The world will not forget that soon.

OOC: Haven't read a dystopian timeline in ages. Maybe I should make an attempt at this.