The War in Europe

The British thought of these efforts as the defense of the British Isles generally and London specifically since that was the focal point of many attacks. I provided an example of misuse of the word "attack" by putting it into a sentence with the usage you suggest but where it clearly didn't fit, perhaps you could comment: "Last night the British armed forces carried out an attack on the German Luftwaffe in the skies over London. The attack destroyed an astounding 4 German bombers while only 900 British citizens lost their lives and only 250 houses were destroyed."That use of the word "attack" is not employed in the manner you suggest in articles about the blitz. For example, in The Blitz (Wikipedia) the word attack is used over and over again to refer to offensive operations, not defensive ones. For example, the British employed fighters in the defense of London, but the article refers to them as part of the defense, not as part of an offensive.I've said many times that language is infinitely flexible, so there are of course exceptions and nuances to what I'm about to say, but in general offensive operations are called attacks, and defensive operations are called defense.Perhaps part of the confusion stems from when one breaks it down into greater detail. The British sent fighters up into the air to defend London when an approaching German bomber squadron was detected, but when a fighter engaged a bomber it would invariably be described as attacking that bomber. Nonetheless, the fighters so employed were considered part of the defense.Another example. When a military base is built they set up a defensive perimeter, not an attacking perimeter. When the base is attacked they employ defensive measures (they might also employ counterattacks). When someone on the defensive perimeter fires his weapon at an attacker, he is engaged in defending the base and definitely not engaged in an offensive.It is perfectly reasonable for someone to say something like, "We're not writing theses here, you understand what my messages mean," but not when they're also saying things like, "A Russian attack on a NATO member nation would force NATO to attack Russia." Now the meaning of "attack" becomes crucial to what this person is trying to say, because the common definition of "attack" renders his statement obviously incorrect.Specifically, Tangle's claim that NATO Article 5 about the common defense requires NATO to attack the attacker makes no sense. There would be a broad range of options. Some would be defensive, some would be offensive, and of course they could be used in combination.--Percy

I understand your position Percy and of course agree you are free to hold that position.I simply disagree with you and explained my position.Yes, of course there would be a wide range of options and one such option is to attack the enemy.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

Yes, we get a healthy dose of Ukraine news daily. The major news outlets have “in depth” coverage with talking heads periodically throughout the day.Right now, note my time 8:45 am pacific, FOX is interviewing Hillary about what more the US should do in Ukraine, CNN is doing its umpteenth replay of the Will Smith slap. The national stations, ABC, NBC, CBS are in the last moments of their morning shows which are pop culture shows with snippets of every scintillating story on the net, Ukraine included.We also have a Supreme nomination in our senate that is fun to watch as republicans fall all over themselves trying not to be racist misogynists (nominee is black woman) and failing. And the NCAA Final Four (college basketball) championships. A very rich spread of titillation for American society.As for the war, my read, the attention span is beginning to wane a bit. There is more stupid coming into the spotlight.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

The line between attack and counterattack is fuzzy.

Stupid, the true wealth of America.

The Aussies step up.
People always claim we need to learn from history. Well history shows that if we allow a murderous thug to wage war, things just get worse no matter how much he is appeased
We can wish all we want but hoping he and his murderous, child-raping thugs go away won't make it so. The last time the world thought they could make a murderous thug quietly go away 80 million people died. Does anyone really think Putin is better or more rational?
I have no answers but doing nothing and having people in our own country praise this murderous thug is not an answer.iview

It doesn't sound like you do. And I explained why your position was wrong and understand why you wouldn't want to attempt a defense.--Percy

Meanwhile, back in the world of real stuff that matters..."The German government has declared 40 Russian diplomats unwelcome and taken temporary control of Gazprom's German subsidiary. This comes as the world digests images of civilian deaths in a Kyiv suburb."The French have expelled 35 and the Lithuanians kicked out the Russian ambassador.The mass murder and rape of civilians in Bucha are being called war crimes - even genocide. I hope this causes the West to send more long-range weaponry. They really need to step this up a notch or ten. Chucking out "diplomats" is pathetic if that's all they do.

Agreed. Big cannons, jets, missiles, comm and counter-battery teck. We also need to share our intel assets, in depth, to alert the Uks where the ruskies are, their strength, their targets.

My opinion has not changed since the early days of the war over a month ago. Token actions like this that do no more than say, "We're unhappy with you," are not enough. We have to seriously ramp things up.First, Europe has to stop buying Russian fossil fuels, and the US and the rest of the world have to help Europe find alternative sources, including installing the necessary infrastructure to make it available.Second, the sanctions need to be ramped up to the point where we don't have to hear it said day after day that the sanctions need to be ramped up. When they can't be ramped up anymore, that's when the sanctions are serious enough.Third, we have to send men and materiel to Ukraine, not just *some* weapons and training. A Russia that fails to conquer Ukraine but still succeeds in slicing off the Donbas region with all its fossil fuel reserves will be a Russia even more able to influence the west and make it easier for right-wing Putin style imitators like Orban (Hungary) and Vucic (Serbia) to remain in power.A free and intact Ukraine is vitally important to western democratic interests. We had better make the effort to insure that happens.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Typo.

Agree with all that.NATO boots in Ukraine hopefully won't be necessary though.

Here’s a what if.What if Zelenskyy’s recent appeal to the UN sparked some magic and NATO moves to declared Ukraine under its protection and begins air and ground operations in country?Does anyone else see Tzar Vladimir the Condemned so injured both militarily and politically that he could do nothing but scream? Sorta the same way NATO screamed when Russia first invaded.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I can't think of any war in the world where sanctions eventually brought an aggressor to its knees and ceased their war efforts. To me sanctions lie somewhere between slow-acting and useless if the goal is to effect policy change (e.g., halt the invasion) by inflicting pain upon the country generally and the populous specifically.About Ukraine, despite the sanctions more Russians support the war now than did a month ago, no doubt because of Putin's successful propaganda effort. He's convinced the Russian people that this is a war of liberation to free Ukraine from their Nazi jailers, especially that head Nazi, Jew Volodymyr Zelensky. The sanctions are not changing any minds in Russia.Each day brings more news reports of new sanctions we could impose. Why are we holding back any sanctions? If we're serious and if we seriously believe sanctions work (doubtful, in my view) then we must impose all possible sanctions now, but with the realization of how ineffective they really are at causing change in a country's behavior.If we think sanctions are a good substitute for men and materiel on the ground and in the air then we're wrong. Sanctions can help, that's all, to a degree and with the passage of time, though time can also work against sanctions as a country develops the means to live with them. Despite over a month of sanctions, and despite all the men and materiel lost in Ukraine, Russia is having no trouble pivoting their military focus to the eastern regions of Ukraine. NATO and the US better immediately begin delivering the effective military aid to the Donbas region, otherwise it's gone and Russia will add its fossil fuel resources to its own inventories.--Percy

Here’s a somewhat bigger what if:What if Putin hits one of those NATO troop occupied ground operations centers with a small (~1 kiloton, ~0.25 mile radius destruction) tactical nuclear weapon?What would/should be the West's response?

I thinks all variations of that scenario are being imagined at the top level of NATO and all the member nations right now. That's why we have not seen U.S. or NATO boots on the ground in Ukraine yet.We're trying to anticipate the behavior of a psychopath and as we saw with Trump, that is not possible. We want the use of nukes to be a line in the sand, but we're afraid to yell it out loud.