How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[NamEndedAllen]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

“It is our world, you just live in it.”  The term being thrown around is “Western Rules Based International Order”.  Pragmatically we need to simply call this what it is because China is clearly working on an Eastern Rules Based International Order.  So while we debate the term they just keep doing it.

The reality is we built the system that survived the Cold War and now need to defend it again.

I first saw a specific outline of a new international rules set in “The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century” - Thomas P.M. Barrett’s 2004 book based in part on his Naval War College experience & project there, and then an article in Esquire. It seemed so reasonable in the sense of how many sovereign nations since WWII could coexist in an emerging framework that ensured vital international trade relations and prevented widespread wars. I’m not clear on how much of the rules set described there has survived since then, and how the term is enumerated today. But I do see the concept blasted these days by nearly all sides. Therefore I assume that it does indeed have still have great value! Perhaps the topic is straying from this forum, but the term Rules Based International Order does crop up. Is there in fact a *current* and concrete set of concepts as rules that many nations in both the West and the East (at least Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, etc) subscribe to? Or is it now just a loose term interpreted more politically, whether pro or con? 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_P._M._Barnett

https://www.amazon.com/Pentagons-New-Map-Twenty-First-Century/dp/0425202399

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by NamEndedAllen

[Butschi]

2 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Trust me, I thought of the same thing when writing ANYTHING about the EU.  Well, a good plan that is frustratingly slow to implement is better than the alternatives.  If Ukraine cleans up its governance and isn't accepted into the EU, at least it will be a much better country for trying.

Honestly, I'd advice against the US becoming involved in this. It could well be understood by the usual suspects as the USA meddling in EU internal affairs and that is not in the best interest of Ukraine.

And I too doubt that Ukraine is going to join anytime soon (through no fault of the Ukrainians). It isn't just about reforms that would need to happen first. The western European members will be afraid of the growing influence of eastern Europe. The net payers will be afraid of yet another money sink. Nearly everyone will be afraid of another Hungary. And Ukraine might discover that solidarity is a finite quantity when everyone realizes that the net payers  won't be willing to pay more, meaning that the same cake has to be divided among more receivers.

Oh well, I'm a passionate European and I do hope I'm wrong in this.

 

[potato4212]

Three questions. 

1. In light of Ukraine How big of a deal Is the U.S Xm5 and its associated vortex optic. of the NGSW program?

2. How big of a deal is IVAS?(HoloLens for the U.S army)

3. This one is mostly for Battlefront. Is the Abrams modeled in CMBS similar to the m1a2sepv4?

[The_Capt]

11 hours ago, NamEndedAllen said:

I first saw a specific outline of a new international rules set in “The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century” - Thomas P.M. Barrett’s 2004 book based in part on his Naval War College experience & project there, and then an article in Esquire. It seemed so reasonable in the sense of how many sovereign nations since WWII could coexist in an emerging framework that ensured vital international trade relations and prevented widespread wars. I’m not clear on how much of the rules set described there has survived since then, and how the term is enumerated today. But I do see the concept blasted these days by nearly all sides. Therefore I assume that it does indeed have still have great value! Perhaps the topic is straying from this forum, but the term Rules Based International Order does crop up. Is there in fact a *current* and concrete set of concepts as rules that many nations in both the West and the East (at least Japan, S. Korea, Singapore, etc) subscribe to? Or is it now just a loose term interpreted more politically, whether pro or con? 

https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Thomas_P._M._Barnett

https://www.amazon.com/Pentagons-New-Map-Twenty-First-Century/dp/0425202399

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order
 

Pretty much the intent but one cannot help becoming cynical.  I am sure plenty of scholars have tried to wrestle with it and I am pretty sure no one entirely agrees.  And then there is the economic twists and turns falling out of Breton Woods and creating multi-lateral financial institutions, which I am one expert on but have read enough to see how we gamed the system:

So you can see that in about 1950, after WW2 we kinda got well, fast.  The whole world got well in fact but the West well out of proportion of the rest of the world.  Plenty of analysis and competing narratives on why this happened but simply put I am pretty sure we rigged the game in our favour after the war while the Soviet Union did its own thing., which did not turn out well.

Regardless oh where one lands this entire thing constitutes “the Deal” and as long as everyone plays by the rules (multilateralism, humanism - to a point, democracy-to a point, and free trade- to a point, we will all get along fine.  Everyone will continue to get well but of course some will be weller than others.  Problem is there are those down the list of the pecking order who are calling BS and want a new deal…and then all the fuss starts.

However, within policy shops and the halls of power this term gets thrown around a lot.  For example “rules based international order” is mentioned about a dozen times in the latest US National Security Strategy https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf

I think what they really mean is “the order in which we get to write the rules” but you are not going to see that written down anywhere.  Regardless whatever it is, it keeps us on top and we like being on top so we are likely going to have to defend the thing and renegotiate from a position of strength in the event certain nations decide to buck…like we are with Russia right now.

Edited January 17, 2023 by The_Capt

[JonS]

14 minutes ago, potato4212 said:

1. In light of Ukraine How big of a deal Is the U.S Xm5 and its associated vortex optic. of the NGSW program?

Not very.

The Ukrainians could be carrying SMLEs and it wouldn't change the course of the war much.

[Kinophile]

@Battlefront.com

# - Start a formal collaboration between DARPA and Ukraine MoD (UMoD should create an equivalent). 

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Apart from the wisdom of the detailed recommendations, the fact that such a meeting and submission is agreed to is refreshing to hear. We don’t know the implications, or whether this sort of thing has been going on with other interested non official individuals and groups. But we can hope that the long considered and detailed specificity can cut through some of the major noise generated by the many special interest groups and lobbyists. So, well done and thanks.

The person I am meeting with is already fully onboard and, fortunately, is in a significant position of influence.  We've met before and definitely good people all around.

1 hour ago, JonS said:

Assuming this is an ordered list(?), I'd drop this one down to no.8, ahead of only professionilisation(sp?) and future army, both of which are decades long activities.

Good point.  The list isn't strictly prioritized, but more important stuff should always go up top.  Restaurant menu people would tell you it goes at the top or the bottom as nobody reads the middle

1 hour ago, JonS said:

I assume the 'win' here is defined elsewhere in doc? Otherwise this is is just "cut a length of cord" - it sounds great, everyone agrees, but it isn't actionable.

Yup, it's in there.  All of these items have at least one full paragraph, some quarter page.  I didn't think posting 9 pages was appropriate

6 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

# - Start a formal collaboration between DARPA and Ukraine MoD (UMoD should create an equivalent).

Yeah, the added point about helping build up Ukraine's defense industry would certainly be tied in with this.

Steve

[NamEndedAllen]

21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

entire thing constitutes “the Deal” and as long as everyone plays by the rules (multilateralism, humanism - to a point, democracy-to a point, and free trade- to a point, we will all get along fine.  Everyone will continue to get well but of course some will be weller than others.  Problem is there are those down the list of the pecking order who are calling BS and want a new deal…and then all the fuss starts.

Thanks for the update. And this extract does to an extent sum up the Barnett framework. He did however layout why those elements were rational in terms of the economies of countries represented by them vs those who did not. The critiques these days about the general term appears as you describe. “You” make the rules, and “you” break them when expedient. Personally it does make sense that a world where many sovereign nations agree to abide by a set of standards that respect human rights, forbid military invasions, engage in trade with practices that are not predatory is more desirable than not. Stepping back, the impulse for some sort of overarching standards can be seen in the efforts for a League of Nations, the United Nations, and various international agreements among some nations. Of course the devil is always in the details. And most of all of course, the players are human beings. 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Honestly, I'd advice against the US becoming involved in this. It could well be understood by the usual suspects as the USA meddling in EU internal affairs and that is not in the best interest of Ukraine.

It's going to happen anyway.  Already is.  I just watched some Russian's interviewed about the war and most of them said they view this as a war with the US.  One guy started out by saying he wouldn't go to Ukraine to kill Ukrainians because what have they done to anybody?  It's the Americans that are to blame, so if he could he'd kill Americans.  Yesh.

Anyway, the point is that as the single largest booster for Ukraine before, during, and most likely after the war it is inevitable that the US will have disproportional influence.  Nothing could be more important for Ukraine than being closely tied into Europe.  As noted in previous posts, there are more ways to do that than full EU membership, but none are as good.  The US should encourage, very strongly, Ukraine shooting for the "gold standard" and see where it takes them.

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

And I too doubt that Ukraine is going to join anytime soon (through no fault of the Ukrainians).

For sure it will be slow.  But Ukraine needs goals to aim for or they won't go anywhere fast.  That's the track record for the past 8 years... 2 steps forward, 1 step back.  They need 3 or 4 steps forward for every one back.

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

It isn't just about reforms that would need to happen first. The western European members will be afraid of the growing influence of eastern Europe. The net payers will be afraid of yet another money sink. Nearly everyone will be afraid of another Hungary. And Ukraine might discover that solidarity is a finite quantity when everyone realizes that the net payers  won't be willing to pay more, meaning that the same cake has to be divided among more receivers.

Oh well, I'm a passionate European and I do hope I'm wrong in this.

You hit upon a major point that is in Ukraine's favor.  And that is the EU already knows it has to reform its voting and governance, not because of Ukraine but because the system doesn't work very well and will only get worse with enlargement.  Hungary made it pretty clear that the concept of all countries having an equal say in policy is not working.  More over, the EU has incentives to enlarge and there's no reasonable way for enlargement to happen with the current structure.  Nothing gets done in the US with 50 states and we have majority vote!  Imagine if we had a requirement for unanimous decisions?  (shudder)

Steve

[chuckdyke]

I don't think EU politicians worry about solutions of issues. More about their standard of living and the prestige they enjoy.

 

[dan/california]

51 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order
 

Pretty much the intent but one cannot help becoming cynical.  I am sure plenty of scholars have tried to wrestle with it and I am pretty sure no one entirely agrees.  And then there is the economic twists and turns falling out of Breton Woods and creating multi-lateral financial institutions, which I am one expert on but have read enough to see how we gamed the system:

So you can see that in about 1950, after WW2 we kinda got well, fast.  The whole world got well in fact but well out of proportion of the rest of the world.  Plenty of analysis and competing narratives on why this happened but simply put I am pretty sure we rigged the game in our favour after the war while the Soviet Union did its own thing., which did not turn out well.

Regardless oh where one lands this entire thing constitutes “the Deal” and as long as everyone plays by the rules (multilateralism, humanism - to a point, democracy-to a point, and free trade- to a point, we will all get along fine.  Everyone will continue to get well but of course some will be weller than others.  Problem is there are those down the list of the pecking order who are calling BS and want a new deal…and then all the fuss starts.

However, within policy shops and the halls of power this term gets thrown around a lot.  For example “rules based international order” is mentioned about a dozen times in the latest US National Security Strategy https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf

I think what they really mean is “the order in which we get to write the rules” but you are not going to see that written down anywhere.  Regardless whatever it is, it keeps us on top and we like being on top so we are likely going to have to defend the thing and renegotiate from a position of strength in the event certain nations decide to buck…like we are with Russia right now.

It is worth reiterating that it is the lightest handed and fairest empire/world order ever. And there is even a relatively fair, by world empire measures of fair, meritocracy to the the way the whole thing is run, usually, mostly. Japan went all in on adopting the "Western" or if you prefer "Anglo-Saxon" Model and we were remarkably OK with it until they got greedy and tried to conquer most of Asia. And after some unpleasantness they are right back in the club. Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and other places to varying degrees adopted the system, and are now pretty much card carrying members of "The Club". Furthermore the people who enforce what passes for the rules in this system are really lazy. You have to TRY to get them come knock you back into line. Direct threats to the worlds energy supply, TRULY large scale terrorism, or genocidal wars directly adjacent to club members seem to be the three things that do trick. Almost anything short of that gets a less than robust response. These are not difficult rules to keep in mind, unless you have a multi decade case of dictators disease progress to outright megalomania, or religious fanaticism has eaten your frontal lobes. 

[chuckdyke]

Nice words of one. "The horrible assault on an apartment building in Dnipro makes it once again clear that Russia shouldn't win this war. Coordination of international military assistance in the coming months is therefore essential" Well done stating the obvious.

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by chuckdyke

[kevinkin]

Wait a darn second, I thought the RA was deploying robots in the form of conscripts already:

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-marker-combat-robot-ukraine-1773878

--
But proofing European security against Russian aggression must include more than just a narrow focus on military hardware: equally pivotal is the improvement and expansion of the continent's critical transport infrastructure. European policymakers have been aware of this need since at least 2017, when a briefing on the need for better military mobility across Europe stated that "European infrastructure that enables connectivity and ensures a rapid response in case of a crisis is a prerequisite" for "a strong and united Europe can protect our citizens against threats internal and external."

Often times it "goes without saying". But then nothing is ever said. Appears to be an important strategic program with all sorts of benefits within the EU.

https://euobserver.com/opinion/156604
--
Good news on gains in operational arena. Watch for the 47th Assault Brigade:

In short, combined-arms teams mixing tanks and fighting vehicles with NATO-type guns and missiles can strike at enemy armor three different ways from around 4,000 yards. That’s a thousand yards farther than a Russian T-72 tank can fire anti-tank shells from its 125-millimeter 2A46 main gun.

Mark Hertling, a retired U.S. Army general who early in his career commanded a Bradley crew, stressed the benefits of this range mismatch. The M-2 and other new vehicle types Ukraine is getting from its NATO allies “will allow Ukraine's emerging combined-arms teams to conduct high-tempo maneuver,” Hertling tweeted.

--
Appears to be a growing urgency within NATO. But this is a downer. 

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/repaired-german-leopard-tanks-for-ukraine-ready-in-2024-at-earliest-armsmaker-101673768856340.html

 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

I just spent some time looking at the early pages of this thread just after hostilities commenced.  Wow... I forgot how many people were here telling us we just didn't understand that Russia had no choice but to clean out all those Nazis who caused so much pain and suffering in the Donbas for the past 8 years.  I remember this was followed by people that tried to debunk all the obvious signs Russia was losing and committing obvious war crimes.  Then we got to the wave of people that kept trying to tell us that Russia was going to pull a rabbit out of its arse and surprise the world with an astonishing victory!  And since then?  Not much of any of that.  Guess they got tired of making fools of themselves or their checks from Putin started to bounce

I also went through some old emails and found this from February 23rd before any Russian forces moved on Ukraine (a few cruise missiles only at this point):

Quote

My guess is that the Russian war plan is to hit Ukraine’s frontline forces so hard that the Ukrainian government capitulates quick enough that whatever Russian dead there might be will be forgiven by the Russian people.  Kinda like with Crimea in that they were willing to take the hit to the chin (economically) because they had a lot to celebrate.

This means Ukraine’s trick is to a) not capitulate, b) maintain a meaningful organized military defense for a couple of weeks minimum, and c) rack up a lot of dead Russians quicker than Russia gains battlefield “victories”.

Time is Ukraine’s worst enemy in the near term.  Since Russia isn’t thinking beyond the net few weeks, nothing else really matters.

Now there's something that aged well.

I posted this in hidden discussion area (Beta Testers) on the 24th about what Putin was thinking would happen:

Quote

As should be the case in a rapidly evolving war, it's a little difficult to make sense of what's going on.  I'd like to take a stab at it.

Putin's obvious goal is to effectively control Ukraine.  At least everything along the line Kiev to Crimea and everything east and along the Black Sea coast.  This is logical as the area contains most of Ukraine's forces, its two largest cities, all access to water, and arguably enough territory to matter.  The symbol of Kiev falling alone has significant propaganda value.  It also gets Putin his land bridge to Crimea.

To do this the Russians launched five major pushes with apparently three goals.  I'm going to name these so as to make it easier to reference.  And yes these names might sound familiar

Group North consists of two forces; A and B.  North A is coming down from Belarus through Chernobyl to encircle Kiev from the west and North B coming from Belarus and Russia to encircle from the east.  Primary objective is to take out Kiev.

Group Center pushes straight westward through Sumy and Kharkiv.  The immediate objective seems to be to separate Kiev from the forces deployed around the Donbas.  It is responsible for securing the left flank of North B.

Group South came out of Crimea and appears to be splitting into two.  South A is attempting to move westward down the coast to cut Ukraine off from Odessa and the Black Sea.  South B is attempting to move eastward up the cost of Azov to take Mariupol.  Both are the immediate objectives.

Group Donbas.  We now know why very few forces appear to have moved into Donbas after Putin made his big to-do about supporting the call of DPR and LPR for aid.  The traditional front is mostly there to hold Ukraine's ATO forces in place so that Group South B and Group Center can encircle and destroy it from all sides after they have completed their initial objectives.

Once this is all done I think Putin presumes that Ukraine will cease fighting in any sort of organized way.  Therefore, I'm not sure he intends to do much more than what I just described.  However, having all forces swing westward is an obvious thing to do if there's enough fores in reserve to hold down the captured territory.

What do people think of this assessment?

This isn't to toot my horn about how smart I am, but instead show how f'n obvious Putin's plan was even within the first day.

If you look at this thread for the first few days we collectively fleshed this out to include the probable timetable, what Putin's core assumptions were, why they were wrong, how SCREWED Russia was even by Day 2, and all kinds of other things that turned out to be spot on correct.  And all through OSINT and some good brains kicking around ideas and observations.

Well done us!

Steve

[dan/california]

I didn't think posting 9 pages was appropriate 

After 2000 pages it occurs to you to worry about this?

Also do we get a bone about the new game at the official 2000 pages mark. That should be sometime next weekend at the latest.

[Battlefront.com]

11 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I didn't think posting 9 pages was appropriate 

After 2000 pages it occurs to you to worry about this?

Good one   My review reminded me how many f'n pages we generated earl on. Almost 9 full pages (225 posts) on February 24th alone.

11 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Also do we get a bone about the new game at the official 2000 pages mark. That should be sometime next weekend at the latest.

Funny, Elvis just nudged me about my annual State of the Union post.  Honestly, it slipped my mind!  I'll get to putting something together for this weekend.

Steve

[FancyCat]

I appreciate the willingness of the IAEA to act like human shields and prevent funny business by Russia at any nuclear plants. A good step towards pushing international oversight of nuclear facilities during hostilities.

 

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

Have we seen any PT-91 footage from Ukraine? Those would go well together with the new IFVs.

[Battlefront.com]

23 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I appreciate the willingness of the IAEA to act like human shields and prevent funny business by Russia at any nuclear plants. A good step towards pushing international oversight of nuclear facilities during hostilities.

It has been a while since Russia pulled a stunt at the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.  I guess they finally figured there was nothing positive to be gained and have, as they often do, moved onto other things.

Steve

[Taranis]

"Ukrainian soldiers in Luhansk Oblast in eastern Ukraine on January 16. ANATOLII STEPANOV / AFP"

[LongLeftFlank]

12 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Not surprising but very sad and bad for Ukraine.

 

So if these caches now cannot be destroyed in place, how might you make them awkward to retrieve and distribute in a timely fashion to the weapons that are using them?

What burns, apart from mobiks?

[not even gonna bother with the obvious meme, the commentariat has it memorised]

[Grossman]

6 hours ago, The_Capt said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order
 

Pretty much the intent but one cannot help becoming cynical.  I am sure plenty of scholars have tried to wrestle with it and I am pretty sure no one entirely agrees.  And then there is the economic twists and turns falling out of Breton Woods and creating multi-lateral financial institutions, which I am one expert on but have read enough to see how we gamed the system:

So you can see that in about 1950, after WW2 we kinda got well, fast.  The whole world got well in fact but well out of proportion of the rest of the world.  Plenty of analysis and competing narratives on why this happened but simply put I am pretty sure we rigged the game in our favour after the war while the Soviet Union did its own thing., which did not turn out well.

Regardless oh where one lands this entire thing constitutes “the Deal” and as long as everyone plays by the rules (multilateralism, humanism - to a point, democracy-to a point, and free trade- to a point, we will all get along fine.  Everyone will continue to get well but of course some will be weller than others.  Problem is there are those down the list of the pecking order who are calling BS and want a new deal…and then all the fuss starts.

However, within policy shops and the halls of power this term gets thrown around a lot.  For example “rules based international order” is mentioned about a dozen times in the latest US National Security Strategy https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf

I think what they really mean is “the order in which we get to write the rules” but you are not going to see that written down anywhere.  Regardless whatever it is, it keeps us on top and we like being on top so we are likely going to have to defend the thing and renegotiate from a position of strength in the event certain nations decide to buck…like we are with Russia right now.

Note post the Soviet Union the growth rate of Eastern Europe, part of the EU.  Ukraine wants to be part of that.

[LongLeftFlank]

Here's a little break from the German-bashing.

...I keep getting urged to visit this place, but then I read utterly creepy stuff like this and it drops off my bucket list again. At least the Serbs and Croats are upfront about their ethnic cleansing habits.

During A̶n̶s̶c̶h̶l̶u̶s̶s̶ Covid, Austrian schoolteachers were calling children to stand up in class to explain the socially harmful nature of their J̶e̶w̶i̶s̶h̶ ̶o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶s̶ unvaxxed status.  That may be a Tweetlibel, but somehow I don't think so....

They take petty authoritarianism in with their mothers' milk?

[LongLeftFlank]

The amazing septaguenarian 6'5" Tennessee Rung Sat vet has dodged death yet again, if you can believe it (again, if this is a hoax, it's the most elaborate one since 'Devil's Guard!):

https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2023/01/15/i-have-no-idea-how-a-guy-like-him-stays-alive/

The Mi-24 was coming-off an attack run, and the guy volunteered to pick us up. It took a bit of coordination, but we managed it. We were down to almost nothing to fight back with. As you know, I do not like helos in war zones....

The Russians are now hyper-actively looking for Lobos running behind their lines in this area. They have been burned by them a lot. But, one welcome change is we have a lot of firepower not terribly far away.

Part 2:  https://ukrainevolunteer297689472.wordpress.com/2023/01/16/it-did-blow-a-flame-jet-so-nobody-inside-survived/

Lobos it seems is what the Russians call Yook recon teams. I cannot verify that, just told it by a few folks who have been involved in interrogations.

With the NLAW, I can take a guy with no AT experience at all, and in less than an hour he will be deadly to vehicles, including main battle tanks.

...For avoidance of doubt, the Russians absolutely can and will get hold of these in time. 

But meanwhile, this is yer snow eating fog, right here....

Edited January 17, 2023 by LongLeftFlank

[Thomm]

13 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Here's a little break from the German-bashing.

...I keep getting urged to visit this place, but then I read utterly creepy stuff like this and it drops off my bucket list again. At least the Serbs and Croats are upfront about their ethnic cleansing habits.

During A̶n̶s̶c̶h̶l̶u̶s̶s̶ Covid, Austrian schoolteachers were calling children to stand up in class to explain the socially harmful nature of their J̶e̶w̶i̶s̶h̶ ̶o̶r̶i̶g̶i̶n̶s̶ unvaxxed status.  That may be a Tweetlibel, but somehow I don't think so....

They take petty authoritarianism in with their mothers' milk?

The guy brought the children to Moscow to re-unite them with their Ukrainian mothers.

There are 72.000 registered Ukrainian refugees currently provided for by Austria.

One of my bosses gave an empty appartment for an Ukrainian family to live in for free since the start of the war.

I personally set up a spare bed of mine there.

I do not think that your comparisons to Nazi treatment of jews are justified.