Should NATO be folded in favor of a European Union unified command?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

NATO was formed to stop Soviet encroachment upon or invasion of Europe. For 20 years now, there has been no Soviet Union. For all of his efforts, Putin appears to be doing no more than consolidating the Russian sphere of interest -- and making a mint for himself and his pals selling stuff to Europe.

In that context, is it finally time for NATO to fold, allowing the European Union to develop a unified command to replace it -- a command that is structured and focused on furthering the agenda of a united Europe.

The USA would, in all probability, maintain a close working relationship with this new European defense entity, but would no longer be forward deployed in Europe or exert pressure on Europe to support US strategic interests because of the ties imposed by NATO.

This would also allow the USA to draw down forces further for budgetary reasons and focus on relationships and strategic partnering with the other states in the Americas.

Quick Poll included, and your comments are always encouraged.

[Beskar]

I think NATO will always end up existing in some-form, until the time it is replaced by the UN Hegemony of the Free People or something. Even if a European Union unified command occured, NATO works as a framework for a great many countries which encompass much of that is perceived as the 'West'.

[Fragony]

My worst nightmare, the EU with an army.

[Sigurd]

There is the problem that key strategic nations are not members of the European Union. With the withdrawal of Greenland from EU in '85, the Russian North fleet have free passage to America in non-EU territory. EU will not be a buffer for the US.

[HoreTore]

There is the problem that key strategic nations are not members of the European Union. With the withdrawal of Greenland from EU in '85, the Russian North fleet have free passage to America in non-EU territory. EU will not be a buffer for the US.

Are you of the opinion that Norway is not a member of the EU?

Better inform our government of that.

As for the topic, I don't think the existence of NATO matters much anymore. The ties it created between the western countries will remain even if the formal agreement disappears. We will still need a channel for discussion, though, so I think disbanding NATO will be mostly an administrative change.

[Sigurd]

Are you of the opinion that Norway is not a member of the EU?

Better inform our government of that.
EU has no obligations towards Norway. We are not a member. Have we filed for membership in secret?

[HoreTore]

EU has no obligations towards Norway. We are not a member. Have we filed for membership in secret?

Please pass this revolutionary new information on to our government.

[ICantSpellDawg]

No, but the various nations should increase their military budgets and find out what role each plays best. NATO is extremely important to both the EU and there US. It is the most effective way to pursue joint military strategies with strong allies AND to reduce cost through fewer redundancies in that theater.

I don't believe that Russia is going to stop aggressively pushing itself into the affairs of surrounding nations. Putin has tasted the forbidden fruit. War is the desire of those in power, always and forever. So long as they don't feel the pain themselves, are aggrandized by the spoils, and can do it with relative impunity - it is the first option rather than a last resort.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Please pass this revolutionary new information on to our government.

Labour and the Conservative party are in favor of it. You are toast. My money is on accession talks within the next 5 years.

[HoreTore]

Labour and the Conservative party are in favor of it. You are toast. My money is on accession talks within the next 5 years.

Sadly, it's extremely unlikely to happen any time soon.

I blame the illiterate peasantry.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Sadly, it's extremely unlikely to happen any time soon.

I blame the illiterate peasantry.

When your governing party and their opposition, coupled with endless external pressures push you to join, put your money on joining.

Your illiterate peasantry is the most literate peasantry in the world.

Personally, I think that a European Union with a weak central authority isn't a bad idea. The one that currently exists, however, is not to be trusted.

[HoreTore]

When your governing party and their opposition, coupled with endless external pressures push you to join, put your money on joining.

Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you?

Unfortunately, that's not the case... A referendum now would be political suicide, a garantueed way of making sure you lose both the referendum as well as the next election.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I'd like to see someone break out of the EU. A soluble union would make It much more enticing. One of the main problems in the US is that the union is eternal. It gives the central government no reason to be reasonable and the people no recourse against bad policy.

[Montmorency]

the people no recourse against bad policy.

Bollox.

Being in for the duration means you have every incentive to improve not just your own situation, but the situation of the union as a whole.

A soluble union is a useless and trivial thing, as the first recourse is always departure rather than improvement.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Bollox.

Being in for the duration means you have every incentive to improve not just your own situation, but the situation of the union as a whole.

A soluble union is a useless and trivial thing, as the first recourse is always departure rather than improvement.

Soluble is key. The EU is still soluble, but there needs to be a trendsetter. Central government should be minimalist. The aggressive nature that the Federal government takes toward State sovereignty leads to the government jealously stealing and then protecting all stolen powers.

Our system is unwieldy and is only capable of compounding existing problems. Avoid our mistakes by allowing for political fluidity and experiment.

[Montmorency]

The central government should of course have all power, on paper - it just needs to use it selectively to best advantage, so as to maximize efficiency and impact.

[ICantSpellDawg]

That is obviously nonsense

[Montmorency]

Check yo'self

[drone]

There is the problem that key strategic nations are not members of the European Union. With the withdrawal of Greenland from EU in '85, the Russian North fleet have free passage to America in non-EU territory. EU will not be a buffer for the US.
:yes:
The key part is in the name. Securing the shipping lanes of the North Atlantic is the most important strategic task of the organization, as this allows the US to supply Europe in case of conflict. The EU can have a central command if they want, but the military elements responsible for maintaining the GIUK gap need to be controlled under NATO.

[rvg]

What? An org poll without a "Gah" option? I demand "Gah"!

[PanzerJaeger]

NATO should be disbanded. Europe has essentially become a backwater within the geopolitical equation and is certainly no longer a part of the world that is key to US interests. An EU unified command would resemble the EU in general, which is to say it would be a dithering, bureaucratic mess. The major economies should return to pursuing their own interests and maintaining their own militaries. A hypothetical war between Germany and France/Britain is highly unlikely today and even if it happened, their importance on the world stage has been so diminished that it would not have nearly the global impact that such wars had during the last century.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

NATO should be disbanded. Europe has essentially become a backwater within the geopolitical equation and is certainly no longer a part of the world that is key to US interests. An EU unified command would resemble the EU in general, which is to say it would be a dithering, bureaucratic mess. The major economies should return to pursuing their own interests and maintaining their own militaries. A hypothetical war between Germany and France/Britain is highly unlikely today and even if it happened, their importance on the world stage has been so diminished that it would not have nearly the global impact that such wars had during the last century.

Panzer, you have simply got to stop sugar-coating your opinions...

[Xiahou]

A soluble union is a useless and trivial thing, as the first recourse is always departure rather than improvement.
Who dragged marriage into this?

[ICantSpellDawg]

NATO should be disbanded. Europe has essentially become a backwater within the geopolitical equation and is certainly no longer a part of the world that is key to US interests. An EU unified command would resemble the EU in general, which is to say it would be a dithering, bureaucratic mess. The major economies should return to pursuing their own interests and maintaining their own militaries. A hypothetical war between Germany and France/Britain is highly unlikely today and even if it happened, their importance on the world stage has been so diminished that it would not have nearly the global impact that such wars had during the last century.

I was enjoying your criticism of those nerds, but I no longer think of NATO as useful for keeping European wars from happening, but instead for securing the budding periphery. Think of it, purely, as mutual defense treaty. Without it, would Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania be safe? If they aren't safe, would Poland be safe? Clearly, European stability is a western interest. Russia is a very real threat to European stability. It won't always be a threat, but there are new threats growing larger every day.

I wish that the EU contributed more to its own security. Years ago, the benefit to NATO, beyond the counterbalance to the Soviets, was that it deterred the untrustworthy euroweenies from building up their military means. This served a purpose then, but not now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

NATO was formed to stop Soviet encroachment upon or invasion of Europe. For 20 years now, there has been no Soviet Union. For all of his efforts, Putin appears to be doing no more than consolidating the Russian sphere of interest -- and making a mint for himself and his pals selling stuff to Europe.

In that context, is it finally time for NATO to fold, allowing the European Union to develop a unified command to replace it -- a command that is structured and focused on furthering the agenda of a united Europe.

The USA would, in all probability, maintain a close working relationship with this new European defense entity, but would no longer be forward deployed in Europe or exert pressure on Europe to support US strategic interests because of the ties imposed by NATO.

This would also allow the USA to draw down forces further for budgetary reasons and focus on relationships and strategic partnering with the other states in the Americas.

Quick Poll included, and your comments are always encouraged.

NATO exists to draw America into a war in Europe, that is it's real purpose.

It exists so that isolationists like Panzer and ICSD can't waste thousands more live by keeping you out for several years AGAIN.

The American politicians of the Post-War years understood the character of their nation, and they understood that the US needed to be forced to do what was morally right to protect the European democracies, because otherwise you wouldn't.

I'm certainly not averse to a US drawdown vs a European uparming, but it's helpful for US troops to be stationed in places like the UK and Germany for cultural reasons, and the reverse is also true. Just today I was thinking what a good idea it would be to have a Romanian, Polish, or Bulgarian garrison in the UK to reduce racism against those countries and to harmonise the various NATO militarises more.

[Beskar]

The American politicians of the Post-War years understood the character of their nation, and they understood that the US needed to be forced to do what was morally right to protect the European democracies, because otherwise you wouldn't.

I'm certainly not averse to a US drawdown vs a European uparming, but it's helpful for US troops to be stationed in places like the UK and Germany for cultural reasons, and the reverse is also true. Just today I was thinking what a good idea it would be to have a Romanian, Polish, or Bulgarian garrison in the UK to reduce racism against those countries and to harmonise the various NATO militarises more.

That would be a lot of garrisons in the country.. or we could have an EU one, and we export/import eachothers soldiers into our respective countries for the same reasons you just stated.

[Brenus]

“NATO should be disbanded.” Agree. NATO being a USA tools, I don’t see why Europeans should foot the bills and sent troops to reinforced USA expansion war(s) in Afghanistan, Iraq or others. If the US is happy to send young men and women dying to protect or expend their market, fine. Why we should finance it or contribute to as it serves no purpose in European Countries point of view?
If European Countries needs defence there are enough Military Factories, knowledge and experience in this side of the pound, and just leave the USA deal with their Military-Industrial Complex. Following the USA left European countries believing in “Missile Shield” and “Special Forces” things when we need tanks, air-planes, boats, submarines, aircraft carriers with planes on it and boots.

[ICantSpellDawg]

NATO exists to draw America into a war in Europe, that is it's real purpose.

It exists so that isolationists like Panzer and ICSD can't waste thousands more live by keeping you out for several years AGAIN.

The American politicians of the Post-War years understood the character of their nation, and they understood that the US needed to be forced to do what was morally right to protect the European democracies, because otherwise you wouldn't.

I'm certainly not averse to a US drawdown vs a European uparming, but it's helpful for US troops to be stationed in places like the UK and Germany for cultural reasons, and the reverse is also true. Just today I was thinking what a good idea it would be to have a Romanian, Polish, or Bulgarian garrison in the UK to reduce racism against those countries and to harmonise the various NATO militarises more.

I'm not an isolationist. I'm the exact opposite of that. Why do you think I'm an isolationist?

[ICantSpellDawg]

“NATO should be disbanded.” Agree. NATO being a USA tools, I don’t see why Europeans should foot the bills and sent troops to reinforced USA expansion war(s) in Afghanistan, Iraq or others. If the US is happy to send young men and women dying to protect or expend their market, fine. Why we should finance it or contribute to as it serves no purpose in European Countries point of view?
If European Countries needs defence there are enough Military Factories, knowledge and experience in this side of the pound, and just leave the USA deal with their Military-Industrial Complex. Following the USA left European countries believing in “Missile Shield” and “Special Forces” things when we need tanks, air-planes, boats, submarines, aircraft carriers with planes on it and boots.

You guys foot the bills? We supplement your national defense saving you untold oodles.

[Husar]

Pretty much what Brenus said. The German army is being sized down to turn it into some small airmobile force that can be used all around the world to pretend that we're important because we can support conflicts like Afghanistan better because due to this one single conflict everybody thought it would be the only kind of conflict we get from now on. Turns out we may have to defend our Russian friends from US-led aggression instead and a light airmobile force won't do in that scenario.


You guys foot the bills? We supplement your national defense saving you untold oodles.

During the cold war perhaps, now you stress our budgets by begging us to support your adventures to secure your oil empire.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Pretty much what Brenus said. The German army is being sized down to turn it into some small airmobile force that can be used all around the world to pretend that we're important because we can support conflicts like Afghanistan better because due to this one single conflict everybody thought it would be the only kind of conflict we get from now on. Turns out we may have to defend our Russian friends from US-led aggression instead and a light airmobile force won't do in that scenario.



During the cold war perhaps, now you stress our budgets by begging us to support your adventures to secure your oil empire.

Defend your Russian friends? You are a nut. Wherever you are getting your news from; get your money back.

But anything that causes Germany to foot the bill for its own protection, I am in favor of it. Your action in Afghanistan has helped keep your military from atrophying. Also, a NATO ally was attacked by the government of Afghanistan, lest you remember.

[Husar]

Also, a NATO ally was attacked by the government of Afghanistan, lest you remember.

Wherever you are getting your news from; get your money back.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Wait a sec. Affiliates of the Taliban in Afghanistan who were trained and supported by the Afghan government hijacked flights and used them as missiles into areas of civilian congregation. They can say whatever they want after the fact, but they were held responsible. The Government supported the terrorism that let to a massive loss of life in the US. What part did I get wrong?

[Husar]

Wait a sec. Affiliates of the Taliban in Afghanistan who were trained and supported by the Afghan government hijacked flights and used them as missiles into areas of civilian congregation. They can say whatever they want after the fact, but they were held responsible. The Government supported the terrorism that let to a massive loss of life in the US. What part did I get wrong?

I have never heard the argument that they trained them, only that they "harbored" them and refused to hand them out.
It's a fact that the CIA trained them though. And the pilots took flying lessons in the US, studied in Germany.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/160681/taliban-not-al-qaeda

When Al Qaeda arrived in Afghanistan from Sudan around 1996, says Kuehn, its membership was not more than 30. Al Qaeda fighters, and the growing number of recruits who came to Afghanistan from elsewhere, kept apart from Taliban fighters, who resented Al Qaeda, and there was a great deal of animosity between the two. Osama bin Laden insisted that international actions against the United States and other countries was crucial to his strategy, while Mullah Omar opposed such actions, says Kuehn.

[Brenus]

“You guys foot the bills?” We paid for your bombs falling on Serbia, and we paid for the reconstruction.

“Also, a NATO ally was attacked by the government of Afghanistan”: Nope. A terrorist organisation based in Afghanistan did. That is why you built Guantanamo jail, as the Taliban didn’t get the status of Prisoners of War hence being protected by Geneva Conventions.
If fact, the US, in this occasion, did as Austrian-Hungarian Empire did after Sarajevo attack by Gavrilo Princip.

[Strike For The South]

So this is how it ends. Cow-towing to German bureaucrats and Russian thugs.

I say we take the English speaking countries and go home, it's clear the continent has thrown their lot in with Fascism & tyranny.

The boot of oppression will soon come down while all of you clamor about the hypocrisy of the USA. The yoke of subjugation will be placed around another generation of Slavs. The bully who was never really stopped will grow bolder

[Pannonian]

So this is how it ends. Cow-towing to German bureaucrats and Russian thugs.

I say we take the English speaking countries and go home

Do you mean most of Europe apart from France?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't think that Merkel is going to completely cave just yet. I hope not. This isn't the last of Putin's hubris. He will start a war and it will be a big one. That's what he wants

[Strike For The South]

Do you mean most of Europe apart from France?

US
UK
CAN
NZ
AUS

The rest of the anglosphere will go through an application process

[ICantSpellDawg]

Slavs love America. Its just Serbs who hate us and it happens to be Serbs on these boards. German speaking people tend to resent Americans for doing the same thing to the Russians that we did to them. Its good to see that spite governs your actions more than your own territorial integrity. You will definitely have s wonderful life living under the Hegemony of an increasingly autocratic Russian despot who relives battles from history in real time

[rvg]

Slavs love America. Its just Serbs who hate us and it happens to be Serbs on these boards. German speaking people tend to resent Americans for doing the same thing to the Russians that we did to them. Its good to see that spite governs your actions more than your own territorial integrity. You will definitely have s wonderful life living under the Hegemony of an increasingly autocratic Russian hegemony who relives battles from history in real time
The sad part is that Russia won't hesitate to crush the Serbs if the need arises. Ukrainians are far closer to Russians than Serbs will ever be, but that didn't stop Putin.

[Sarmatian]

Slavs love America. Its just Serbs who hate us and it happens to be Serbs on these boards. German speaking people tend to resent Americans for doing the same thing to the Russians that we did to them. Its good to see that spite governs your actions more than your own territorial integrity. You will definitely have s wonderful life living under the Hegemony of an increasingly autocratic Russian hegemony who relives battles from history in real time

I am the one who is many.

Don't feel bad about it, it's nothing personal, we hate a lot of countries.

[Brenus]

US, UK, CAN, NZ, AUS: All these European Nations…

“The sad part is that Russia won't hesitate to crush the Serbs if the need arises. Ukrainians are far closer to Russians than Serbs will ever be, but that didn't stop Putin.” So Putin will finish the job you started?

Mind you, Putin didn’t “crush” Crimea did he? USA liberating Iraq did it with far more damages for the civilian population, not speaking of the siege of Fallujah…

[Sarmatian]

So Putin will finish the job you started?


Bah, Americans think they're hot stuff and think they can pick a fight with us. Just ask the other nations that tried to pick a fight with us, ask them how it was. Ask the Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Habsburg Empire, Third Reich, Soviet Union... Oh, that's right, you can't - they don't exist any more!!! Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha...

[rvg]

Who is us?

[Pannonian]

Who is us?

United States, but not so capitalised.

[Kadagar_AV]

I think Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would be somewhat worried if NATO broke up.

Poland is somewhat too much EU-back garden for Russia to dare attack anytime soon though.

[Sarmatian]

Who is us?


Serbs, naturally.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Serbs, naturally.

The Serbs have been disgraced around the world. I know Serbians who tell everyone that they are Yugoslav because of what the Serbs did to the nations who were trying to rebuild away from their control. Nobody is picking fights with Serbs because you don't kick a dying dog.

No offense, but it would be depressing to still live in Serbia or the Serbian Republic in Bosnia. Living in the past and tilting at windmills isn't going to maker Serbia better.

[Sarmatian]

The Serbs have been disgraced around the world. I know Serbians who tell everyone that they are Yugoslav because of what the Serbs did to the nations who were trying to rebuild away from their control. Nobody is picking fights with Serbs because you don't kick a dying dog.

No offense, but it would be depressing to still live in Serbia or the Serbian Republic in Bosnia

None taken. And I agree - it would be depressing if you lived in Serbia.

[ICantSpellDawg]

None taken. And I agree - it would be depressing if you lived in Serbia.

I see what you did there.

[Husar]

I don't think that Merkel is going to completely cave just yet. I hope not. This isn't the last of Putin's hubris. He will start a war and it will be a big one. That's what he wants

That's complete buffergobble. You kept scaring us of the red tide for >50 years and it never came. After the Cold War we found out that they never really wanted to attack after Stalin and even took quite a few actions to prevent a huge (nuclear) war.

The US stationed nuclear missiles all around the USSR in rather close proximity and when they tried the same on Cuba, the US threw a hissy fit and threatened to destroy the world. The USA finance a number of politically active NGOs in Russia and Russia pays none in the USA, but Russia is the aggressive one here. Yeah, right...

Not to forget that not all Russians support Putin and he may actually lose a lot more support if he starts conquering countries left and right because Russians also like to think of themselves as the good guys. If we start handing him excuses left and right, we just make it easier for him. Starting a war is a pretty good excuse. If he does go much further I might agree with you, but so far he has just made some steps towards joining Crimea to Russia, where a majority want to be Russian anyway. But maybe if he conquers all of Europe, we can finally get our own internet and become free from Big Brother and his total surveillance. And a 13% flat income tax also sounds pretty nice...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That would be a lot of garrisons in the country.. or we could have an EU one, and we export/import eachothers soldiers into our respective countries for the same reasons you just stated.

Well, for one thing that wouldn't include the US - and it's important to generate US outrage early when Russia starts it's invasion. That's why you need US troops on the borders, not lots, but enough that Russia has to attack them in the first instance.

Also, you can't just "export/import" units, you have to embed them. Any meaningful deployment would need to be measured in years, preferably a couple of decades before the unit is rotated out. There are places in Germany (or were) British soldiers don't want to see bombed, specific curry houses, or strip clubs, or brothels. That sort of thing.

It's about building a long-term attachment to another place, not integrating us into one European nation - in fact that would currently run counter to any effort to defend against Russian aggression.


“NATO should be disbanded.” Agree. NATO being a USA tools, I don’t see why Europeans should foot the bills and sent troops to reinforced USA expansion war(s) in Afghanistan, Iraq or others. If the US is happy to send young men and women dying to protect or expend their market, fine. Why we should finance it or contribute to as it serves no purpose in European Countries point of view?
If European Countries needs defence there are enough Military Factories, knowledge and experience in this side of the pound, and just leave the USA deal with their Military-Industrial Complex. Following the USA left European countries believing in “Missile Shield” and “Special Forces” things when we need tanks, air-planes, boats, submarines, aircraft carriers with planes on it and boots.

Europe can't match the Russian military muscle, or access to raw materials, and we need to OVEWRMATCH them in any case.


I'm not an isolationist. I'm the exact opposite of that. Why do you think I'm an isolationist?

I must be thinking of someone else.


Pretty much what Brenus said. The German army is being sized down to turn it into some small airmobile force that can be used all around the world to pretend that we're important because we can support conflicts like Afghanistan better because due to this one single conflict everybody thought it would be the only kind of conflict we get from now on. Turns out we may have to defend our Russian friends from US-led aggression instead and a light airmobile force won't do in that scenario.

You mean the Russian friends under Putin Facist boot?

I thought the Germans had got that message about Facism, but you seem to have missed the memo. It's a bad thing, Husar.


During the cold war perhaps, now you stress our budgets by begging us to support your adventures to secure your oil empire.

Afghanistan was revenge and Iraq was for daddy.

Aside from GWB - who was the last US president to use NATO to draw Germany into a ground war?

Oh - and your military need reforming, your soldiers are starting to get fat and sedentary, although to be fair that took six decades longer than it would have taken any other nation with the exception of the Swiss.


So this is how it ends. Cow-towing to German bureaucrats and Russian thugs.

I say we take the English speaking countries and go home, it's clear the continent has thrown their lot in with Fascism & tyranny.

The boot of oppression will soon come down while all of you clamor about the hypocrisy of the USA. The yoke of subjugation will be placed around another generation of Slavs. The bully who was never really stopped will grow bolder

Quite so - the US is far from awesome, but Putin is a Tyrant and he needs to be checked for everybody's sake, especially Russia's

[Brenus]

"Europe can't match the Russian military muscle" Europe would have if Europe wouldn't have been following USA doctrine and stupid so-call war on terror. Now, I agree with you. Europe is no match for Russia nor USA for this matter, as Obama is very well aware. How many units were rushed in Poland... 2 AWACS. Whao, I feel much better.

"about Fascism": I think you should look at the definition of Fascism.

[Husar]

Europe can't match the Russian military muscle, or access to raw materials, and we need to OVEWRMATCH them in any case.

Good luck, could rather start a referendum to join the Russian Federation.


You mean the Russian friends under Putin Facist boot?

I thought the Germans had got that message about Facism, but you seem to have missed the memo. It's a bad thing, Husar.

I suppose you mean Fascism, as Brenus said, you might want to look up more than the spelling though.


Afghanistan was revenge and Iraq was for daddy.

Oh that's a cute excuse, I bet all the dead civilians are willing to forgive it now.


Aside from GWB - who was the last US president to use NATO to draw Germany into a ground war?

Oh - and your military need reforming, your soldiers are starting to get fat and sedentary, although to be fair that took six decades longer than it would have taken any other nation with the exception of the Swiss.

GWB is enough, it was certainly enough to kickstart these army reforms for future "world improvement campaigns".
Our new defense ministress wants to turn the army into a family friendly job creator so if we ever oppose Russia, we can only fight while the babysitters have time.


Quite so - the US is far from awesome, but Putin is a Tyrant and he needs to be checked for everybody's sake, especially Russia's

The USA declared us a nation that requires strong surveillance, wire-tapped our chancellor and treat us all like criminals. And when we complain, they go "well, come and stop us *trolololol*". If I'm supposed to see them as our friends, maybe that was not the most helpful behavior.
Putin is not a tyrant, he is the elected president of the largest country on earth, show some respect.

[ICantSpellDawg]

http://i.word.com/idictionary/fascism

That sounds like nowhere but Putin's Russia

[Pannonian]

Quite so - the US is far from awesome, but Putin is a Tyrant and he needs to be checked for everybody's sake, especially Russia's

Ugh. If this is the underlying reason for the push to war, then I'm strongly against. We have no business caring about Russia for their sake. If they want the tyranny of Putin, then it's their privilege to have him. I think LibDem evangelists are as bad as other fundamentalists, except maybe they're worse as they have access to bigger and readier arsenals with which to spread their beliefs.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Putin is not a tyrant, he is the elected president of the largest country on earth, show some respect.

Such an intellectual. Can't wait to read your enlightening thesis on why overt authoritarianism will be the great liberator from the American panopticon.

[Brenus]

“Such an intellectual. Can't wait to read your enlightening thesis on why overt authoritarianism will be the great liberator from the American panopticon.” Can I remind you that the last 20 years, the very democratic USA started more wars than the Russian Dictatorship? I am not a big lover of Putin, but things have to be said.

"That sounds like nowhere but Putin's Russia" You were referring to Germany, that was Nazism.

[Pannonian]

“Such an intellectual. Can't wait to read your enlightening thesis on why overt authoritarianism will be the great liberator from the American panopticon.” Can I remind you that the last 20 years, the very democratic USA started more wars than the Russian Dictatorship? I am not a big lover of Putin, but things have to be said.


The west doesn't start wars, it introduces freedom for the oppressed subject people's sake.


These people are using hypernationalistic violence against unarmed citizens. This is different from Kiev. In Kiev citizens used violence against the armed and oppressive state. Do you see the difference?

Did we find out in the end who it was that ordered their snipers to fire?

I have no idea. The snipers had a right to fire to protect others from bodily harm. Some police could have just had enough, independent of an order.

[a completely inoffensive name]

“Such an intellectual. Can't wait to read your enlightening thesis on why overt authoritarianism will be the great liberator from the American panopticon.” Can I remind you that the last 20 years, the very democratic USA started more wars than the Russian Dictatorship? I am not a big lover of Putin, but things have to be said.

No kidding. It's only been twenty years since the USSR collapsed. Russia has been focused on consolidating within and establishing a new power structure around their new Constitution. Hell, the Communist Party still has control of 20% of the State Duma. Low and behold, once a new top dog cements himself over the past decade, Russia now starts getting antsy with its bordering countries.

Number of wars means nothing. Afghanistan was 100% justified and was mismanaged. Iraq was a large mistake, the American people by and large admit this and it should serve as a testament to the American people that we do not and probably will not ever look back on Bush 42 kindly, despite this man once holding a 90+ approval rating after 9/11.

I don't know what is more embarrassing than this, seeing Europeans in here chastise the US for putting boots on the ground in foreign countries under Bush and then chastise the US when we switch tactics under Obama when they have literally nothing but hands to sit on when Ukraine is under siege.

[Kadagar_AV]

According to Swedish media, the same sniper attacked both protesters and the police.

It's thus no longer a tin-foil thingy to assume it was done to heat up the situation.

I'd say it points towards the opposition being behind the sniper attacks.

EDIT: We know it's the same sniper because ballistic analysis shows it's the same weapon who fired the shots.

[Husar]

Such an intellectual. Can't wait to read your enlightening thesis on why overt authoritarianism will be the great liberator from the American panopticon.

I don't know what a panopticon is you intellectual.
Once I am liberated from the US, I will enjoy my 13% flat income tax. As for authoritarianism, Russians like that, they want a strong leader, not unlike the 49% of your nation that follows Fox News, who recently complained about your great leader not being strong enough.
You criticize Putin for being what you wish your president were.

Crimea River.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I wish that the President was harder abroad and softer at home

[Pannonian]

No kidding. It's only been twenty years since the USSR collapsed. Russia has been focused on consolidating within and establishing a new power structure around their new Constitution. Hell, the Communist Party still has control of 20% of the State Duma. Low and behold, once a new top dog cements himself over the past decade, Russia now starts getting antsy with its bordering countries.

Number of wars means nothing. Afghanistan was 100% justified and was mismanaged. Iraq was a large mistake, the American people by and large admit this and it should serve as a testament to the American people that we do not and probably will not ever look back on Bush 42 kindly, despite this man once holding a 90+ approval rating after 9/11.

I don't know what is more embarrassing than this, seeing Europeans in here chastise the US for putting boots on the ground in foreign countries under Bush and then chastise the US when we switch tactics under Obama when they have literally nothing but hands to sit on when Ukraine is under siege.

It shouldn't be too outrageous to ask for a decent argument for war before actually fighting a war. Afghanistan was justified, as someone under their wing attacked the US, and they failed to give satisfaction. On Iraq, a number of BS arguments were put forward, clearly refuted, then argument number n put forward in turn, before returning to argument number 1 again and circling back, with the basic argument that we should fight because we should fight. As quoted in my previous post in this thread (last post on the last page), we have an emotional argument put forward with a compelling picture of the Russian-backed government oppressing the poor Ukrainian people, then when I point out that the oppressive actions may have been ordered by someone we're currently backing, the language changes and suddenly said oppressive actions are no longer important. Having been against Iraq from the beginning, I smell BS again.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You criticize Putin for being what you wish your president were.

I criticize Putin because I don't trust any man or woman who believes they should be the head of state for more than 12 years (two terms under Russia's const.)

Sure the Russian Constitution says you can be President as many times as you want as long as you have have no more than two consecutive terms, but this only highlights the point of how much of a joke Russian Democracy is.

[Kadagar_AV]

It shouldn't be too outrageous to ask for a decent argument for war before actually fighting a war. Afghanistan was justified, as someone under their wing attacked the US, and they failed to give satisfaction. On Iraq, a number of BS arguments were put forward, clearly refuted, then argument number n put forward in turn, before returning to argument number 1 again and circling back, with the basic argument that we should fight because we should fight. As quoted in my previous post in this thread (last post on the last page), we have an emotional argument put forward with a compelling picture of the Russian-backed government oppressing the poor Ukrainian people, then when I point out that the oppressive actions may have been ordered by someone we're currently backing, the language changes and suddenly said oppressive actions are no longer important. Having been against Iraq from the beginning, I smell BS again.

The Talibans offered to help against terrorist training camps, what more could you have asked for?

Do you seriously think there was ANYTHING the sitting Afghan regime could have offered, once USA smelled revenge and got their war machine going?

[a completely inoffensive name]

It shouldn't be too outrageous to ask for a decent argument for war before actually fighting a war. Afghanistan was justified, as someone under their wing attacked the US, and they failed to give satisfaction. On Iraq, a number of BS arguments were put forward, clearly refuted, then argument number n put forward in turn, before returning to argument number 1 again and circling back, with the basic argument that we should fight because we should fight. As quoted in my previous post in this thread (last post on the last page), we have an emotional argument put forward with a compelling picture of the Russian-backed government oppressing the poor Ukrainian people, then when I point out that the oppressive actions may have been ordered by someone we're currently backing, the language changes and suddenly said oppressive actions are no longer important. Having been against Iraq from the beginning, I smell BS again.

My position is that we should not go to war unless Russia attacks Ukraine. Then we are morally and legally obligated to defend it based on that treaty we signed back in the 1990s with them in exchange for their nukes. Ukraine should take all measures to fight its Crimean War of Independence and we should stay out at all costs, until Russia moves its troops in.

[Pannonian]

I criticize Putin because I don't trust any man or woman who believes they should be the head of state for more than 12 years (two terms under Russia's const.)

Sure the Russian Constitution says you can be President as many times as you want as long as you have have more than two consecutive terms, but this only highlights the point of how much of a joke Russian Democracy is.

Are you aware that America's darling PM in the modern era won 3 general elections? Hang on. Are you aware that America's darling PMs in the modern era both won 3 general elections? That warmongering :daisy: didn't get my vote in the last one though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Are you aware that America's darling PM in the modern era won 3 general elections? Hang on. Are you aware that America's darling PMs in the modern era both won 3 general elections? That warmongering :daisy: didn't get my vote in the last one though.

They are "darling" to Republican Neocons. Probably because both Thatcher and Blair are Diet Neocons themselves. It should be a huge tip to you Brits that the political philosophy that demonizes poor people has brought you two individuals that want as many terms as possible.

You guys should probably clamp down on that btw.

[Husar]

I criticize Putin because I don't trust any man or woman who believes they should be the head of state for more than 12 years (two terms under Russia's const.)

Sure the Russian Constitution says you can be President as many times as you want as long as you have have no more than two consecutive terms, but this only highlights the point of how much of a joke Russian Democracy is.


Are you aware that America's darling PM in the modern era won 3 general elections? Hang on. Are you aware that America's darling PMs in the modern era both won 3 general elections? That warmongering :daisy: didn't get my vote in the last one though.

Not only that, Germany must have succumbed to fascism again long ago as Kohl chancellor for 4 terms or 16 years and Merkel is currently in her third term as well. I'm sorry that our democracy is not as great as your horribly corrupt basically-just-one-party-system.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Good luck, could rather start a referendum to join the Russian Federation.

We already overmatch Russia economically and militarily, just not in "boots on the ground".


I suppose you mean Fascism, as Brenus said, you might want to look up more than the spelling though.

A authoritarian and nationalist philosophy, suborning religious and intellectual thought to the service of the State, persecution of minorities, regimented control of the economy.

A leader who deliberately fosters a quasi-cult of himself?

How is Russia not a Fascist state?

Nice try at the ad hominen, btw. I missed a letter out, big shocker for a Dyslexic writing in a foreign language.


Oh that's a cute excuse, I bet all the dead civilians are willing to forgive it now.

Excuse, what excuse?

I'm not excusing anything, I'm pointing out that those two wars are very specific, one to a period in history and one to a single president. Both in the past.


GWB is enough, it was certainly enough to kickstart these army reforms for future "world improvement campaigns".
Our new defense ministress wants to turn the army into a family friendly job creator so if we ever oppose Russia, we can only fight while the babysitters have time.

As opposed to an army unable to deploy overseas because it is too integrated into civilian life and lacks mobile logistics?


The USA declared us a nation that requires strong surveillance, wire-tapped our chancellor and treat us all like criminals. And when we complain, they go "well, come and stop us *trolololol*". If I'm supposed to see them as our friends, maybe that was not the most helpful behavior.

Even when the British PM demanded MI5 not spy on someone, they did. As previously noted, the US has a plan to kill everyone. If you think Russia doesn't - well.


Putin is not a tyrant, he is the elected president of the largest country on earth, show some respect.

that was not a moral judgement, or disrespectful - but he IS a Tyrant, he has manipulated the Russian polity and Constitution so that he, and only he, can be President, or Prime Minister, or Tsar.

Pretending otherwise at this point is a deliberate exercise in apologetics.

[Pannonian]

They are "darling" to Republican Neocons. Probably because both Thatcher and Blair are Diet Neocons themselves. It should be a huge tip to you Brits that the political philosophy that demonizes poor people has brought you two individuals that want as many terms as possible.

You guys should probably clamp down on that btw.

Or, if you approach it from the British POV, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting as many terms as possible, as anyone going into politics will be of that frame of mind anyway, and we ask only that they do a good job when they're in power. And indeed, Blair, who is poison nowadays, voluntarily stepped down in the middle of his 3rd term. IIRC our first PM, Robert Walpole, served something like 20 years straight, and he probably did the best job of them all.

[Sarmatian]

I criticize Putin because I don't trust any man or woman who believes they should be the head of state for more than 12 years (two terms under Russia's const.)

Then you must really hate Britain. Lizzy's been at it for how long now?


Sure the Russian Constitution says you can be President as many times as you want as long as you have have no more than two consecutive terms, but this only highlights the point of how much of a joke Russian Democracy is.

coughRooseveltcough...


Anyway, the best way to deal with Putin is to leave him alone. In a poll conducted a few months ago, more than 50% of Russians said they wouldn't like to see him as the president again.

In all this hiatus, unrelenting against western pressure, he got 10 or 20% more support...

[Kadagar_AV]

Sweden has no laws against how long a PM can sit. I guess our democracy is WAY off then.

We also have a king, and he's kind of into it for life.

[Sarmatian]

Sweden has no laws against how long a PM can sit. I guess our democracy is WAY off then.

We also have a king, and he's kind of into it for life.

Ironically, most democracies around the world have the power concentrated into the hands of government and the prime minister himself and they don't have a term limit.

[Brenus]

“Then we are morally and legally obligated to defend it based on that treaty we signed back in the 1990s with them in exchange for their nukes” Nope, the Treaty does not say that. The text is above, somewhere, read it.
And the Treaty signed by Ukraine and Russia allowed Russia to have troops.

:lipsrsealed2:Anyway, I even don’t know why I am saying this. USA and EU just sit on Treaties and International Borders when it suits them.
I could stop laughing when Obama said “it is illegal”…

[Hax]

I think Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would be somewhat worried if NATO broke up.

Poland is somewhat too much EU-back garden for Russia to dare attack anytime soon though.

This.

The situation in Ukraine spells trouble for the Baltic states, whose relationship with Russia have been strained since the break-up of the Soviet Union; if the Russian government is able to invade other countries on the pretext of "defending the Russian minority", then I worry thinking about cities like Daugavpils (Latvia) or Narva Estonia). Although I'm skeptical of Russia's interest in the Baltic states (they're not too strategically important anymore), there has been an increasing tendency in the Russian government to expand its influence.

[Kadagar_AV]

This.

The situation in Ukraine spells trouble for the Baltic states, whose relationship with Russia have been strained since the break-up of the Soviet Union; if the Russian government is able to invade other countries on the pretext of "defending the Russian minority", then I worry thinking about cities like Daugavpils (Latvia) or Narva Estonia). Although I'm skeptical of Russia's interest in the Baltic states (they're not too strategically important anymore), there has been an increasing tendency in the Russian government to expand its influence.

I don't know if I read you right, but I honestly give it a snowballs chance in hell that Putin will mess with NATO countries.

Putin might be many things, but stupid isn't among them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If the Baltic countries were attacked today the US would do nothing about it. NATO treaty or not, the US citizens couldn't find Estonia on a map and, like when chemical weapons were used on people and never disposed of, the current admin found any excuse it could to wash its hands of the situation. That has worked out extremely well.

What happened to the President who helped topple Gaddafi?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Not only that, Germany must have succumbed to fascism again long ago as Kohl chancellor for 4 terms or 16 years and Merkel is currently in her third term as well. I'm sorry that our democracy is not as great as your horribly corrupt basically-just-one-party-system.


Or, if you approach it from the British POV, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting as many terms as possible, as anyone going into politics will be of that frame of mind anyway, and we ask only that they do a good job when they're in power. And indeed, Blair, who is poison nowadays, voluntarily stepped down in the middle of his 3rd term. IIRC our first PM, Robert Walpole, served something like 20 years straight, and he probably did the best job of them all.



coughRooseveltcough...
Good thing we clamped down and prohibited another one of him after he broke a tradition stemming from Washington.


Sweden has no laws against how long a PM can sit. I guess our democracy is WAY off then.

We also have a king, and he's kind of into it for life.


I mean, there is nothing much to say other than you guys are all doing it wrong. I am glad that no matter what, I will always be able to point at two different faces as the reason X decade was terrible.

[Kadagar_AV]

If the Baltic countries were attacked today the US would do nothing about it. NATO treaty or not, the US citizens couldn't find Estonia on a map and, like when chemical weapons were used on people and never disposed of, the current admin found any excuse it could to wash its hands of the situation. That has worked out extremely well.

What happened to the President who helped topple Gaddafi?


I will jump in and defend USA here.

I do believe the US population would react quite strongly if a NATO member was attacked.

Heck, anyone above the age of 30 got it served with their mothers milk to uphold NATO at all costs. Younger peeps might have another view, as they are, you know, stupid. But I can assure you that the US of A would muscle up and send everything they had if there even was a whisper about aggression towards a NATO country.

USA's whole legibility as Super Power is based on it.

[rvg]

I don't know if I read you right, but I honestly give it a snowballs chance in hell that Putin will mess with NATO countries.

Putin might be many things, but stupid isn't among them.

In FotS a general that gets more command stars than the Daimyo receives a "Delusions of Grandeur" vice. I'm starting to think that Putin has it. He is becoming too much of a loose cannon imho.

[Hax]

I don't know if I read you right, but I honestly give it a snowballs chance in hell that Putin will mess with NATO countries.

Putin might be many things, but stupid isn't among them.

I'm torn on this.

I agree that Putin is no fool, but sometimes I get the impression that he's somewhat in a tight spot. I understand that he has lost a lot of face in Russia, and I think he would go to great lengths to stay in power. No, I don't see him starting a full-blown invasion of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, but he (or someone else) could use the pretext of riots in the Baltic states to justify a military presence in certain locations ("to protect the Russian minority"), then by demanding a certain quota of Russian representatives in parliament, a certain quota of Russian bureaucrats, the elevation of Russian as an official language, etc, etc. It's not an invasion that I fear, but a slippery slope.


If the Baltic countries were attacked today the US would do nothing about it. NATO treaty or not, the US citizens couldn't find Estonia on a map and, like when chemical weapons were used on people and never disposed of, the current admin found any excuse it could to wash its hands of the situation. That has worked out extremely well.

Maybe the U.S. wouldn't interfere directly, but I hardly think that an invasion of the Baltic states would go unnoticed by countries such as Poland or Finland, who would most likely pressure the individual European Union states into a conflict with Russia. Of course, maybe not Finland, we all know what happened the last time when Russia tried to invade them.


EDIT: To illustrate the current issues of Baltic-Russian relations, a few years ago there were huge riots in certain parts of Tallinn after the Estonian government decided to remove a statue commemorating Soviet soldiers; this also led to some strong comments from Russian officials, in which the Estonian president, prime minister, and minister of foreign affairs were called nazis. The fact that there are several marches throughout the Baltic states that honour Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian soldiers who served in Nazi regiments has also set some bad blood. Very recently, the Latvian minister of environment was sacked over this (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/03/latvian-minister-sacked-over-nazi-march-2014314151359669950.html). Throughout the Baltic states, Nazi Germany was initially hailed as a liberator from the Soviet Union (additionally, the Nazis were a bit vague over possible independence after the war, whereas the Baltic states were completely annexed by the Soviets). After a few years of course, most of the people figured out there weren't any differences between the two, and the Nazis lost a lot of sympathy. However, unlike in Western Europe, the Soviet Union has left traces that are so strong and so recent, that it would be nothing short of miraculous if people would just gloss over it (my girlfriends family, for example, was deported to Siberia).

tl;dr: there is a lot of bad blood between Russia and the Baltic states, which is sorta understandable on both sides.

[Kadagar_AV]

In FotS a general that gets more stars than the Daimyo receives a "Delusions of Grandeur" vice. I'm starting to think that Putin has it. He is becoming too much of a loose cannon imho.

Only, he IS the Shogun of his Empire. As well as, you know, the Emperor, or Tsar as he would be known over there.

I, for one, think they should just crown Putin Tsar, give him a ****load of estates, and then turn their eyes towards democracy. But that's just silly ol' me :clown:

[Kadagar_AV]

I'm torn on this.

I agree that Putin is no fool, but sometimes I get the impression that he's somewhat in a tight spot. I understand that he has lost a lot of face in Russia, and I think he would go to great lengths to stay in power. No, I don't see him starting a full-blown invasion of Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania, but he (or someone else) could use the pretext of riots in the Baltic states to justify a military presence in certain locations ("to protect the Russian minority"), then by demanding a certain quota of Russian representatives in parliament, a certain quota of Russian bureaucrats, the elevation of Russian as an official language, etc, etc. It's not an invasion that I fear, but a slippery slope.



Maybe the U.S. wouldn't interfere directly, but I hardly think that an invasion of the Baltic states would go unnoticed by countries such as Poland or Finland, who would most likely pressure the individual European Union states into a conflict with Russia. Of course, maybe not Finland, we all know what happened the last time when Russia tried to invade them.

Some intelligent poster above (forgot who) brightly stated that the Russians want to see themselves as the good guys, just like we do in the West.

If for no other reasons: Russia can't win the media war if invading, or even trying to stir up, the Baltic States. This is not the Ukrain/Georgian backwaters we are talking about, that most people assume belong to Russia anyway. This is developed NATO members with LOADS of political and cultural ties to NATO-member states, and the West at large.

Heck, every second farmer in Sweden have a Latvian wife by now.

[Hax]

Maybe.

But 100% of Russian Estonians in Tallinn, and 1/3rd of the Latvian population agree with Russia's course of action in Ukraine. And then there's the mayor of Tallinn, Edgar Savisaar, who makes no real secret of his proximity to the Russian government. Hell, only six MPs of twenty-one of his party (Keskerakond) signed a letter expressing sympathies to Ukraine, and that itself caused a small riot in Keskerakond (his party).

Also I can't believe it, the Baltic states are relevant for once.

[rvg]

Maybe.

But 100% of Russian Estonians in Tallinn, and 1/3rd of the Latvian population agree with Russia's course of action in Ukraine. And then there's the mayor of Tallinn, Edgar Savisaar, who makes no real secret of his proximity to the Russian government. Hell, only six MPs of twenty-one of his party (Keskerakond) signed a letter expressing sympathies to Ukraine, and that itself caused a small riot in Keskerakond (his party).

Also I can't believe it, the Baltic states are relevant for once.

I wonder if the local Russians there are also eager to be absorbed into the empire.

[Kadagar_AV]

Also I can't believe it, the Baltic states are relevant for once.

Yeah, that's why Sweden decided to place as many as 2 (TWO!!) fighter jets on Gotland.

You know, if the first one doesn't keep the Russian Bear at bay, we have a plan(e) to fall back on.

[rvg]

He's watching...

12467

[Tellos Athenaios]

USA's whole legibility as Super Power is based on it.

Hmm, there's an idea: confine all future showdowns to a competition in calligraphy.

[Husar]

We already overmatch Russia economically and militarily, just not in "boots on the ground".

I'm still not sure about that. Russia has some really good high-tech and a lot of their gear is underestimated. Other people have made that mistake before.


A authoritarian and nationalist philosophy, suborning religious and intellectual thought to the service of the State, persecution of minorities, regimented control of the economy.

A leader who deliberately fosters a quasi-cult of himself?

How is Russia not a Fascist state?

Nice try at the ad hominen, btw. I missed a letter out, big shocker for a Dyslexic writing in a foreign language.

I may have gone a bit too far there and sorry about the ad hominem.
I still find that western rhetoric colours him far worse than a lot of people in his own country see him. If Putin is that bad, Russians will find a way to get rid of him. But by giving him good outside excuses and funding NGOs that work against him, we are not helping.


Excuse, what excuse?

I'm not excusing anything, I'm pointing out that those two wars are very specific, one to a period in history and one to a single president. Both in the past.

There were enough wars by other presidents, regime changes, attempted regime changes etc.
That these things are historic is of little help when the current admins and large parts of the population seem to follow a very similar line.


As opposed to an army unable to deploy overseas because it is too integrated into civilian life and lacks mobile logistics?

Germans want Germany to take a more prominent role on the world stage but noone wants to do this by sending the army overseas.
As for capabilities, that stay-at-home army had more than 3000 tanks, the new one will have less than 300. You can roll over third world countries or the Netherlands with those but against a more competent opponent they're not enough.


Even when the British PM demanded MI5 not spy on someone, they did. As previously noted, the US has a plan to kill everyone. If you think Russia doesn't - well.

I think Russia does, but what's your point? That western intelligence has gone rogue and is uncontrollable?


that was not a moral judgement, or disrespectful - but he IS a Tyrant, he has manipulated the Russian polity and Constitution so that he, and only he, can be President, or Prime Minister, or Tsar.

Pretending otherwise at this point is a deliberate exercise in apologetics.

I agree that he is a power hungry muppet but IIRC he didn't need to manipulate a lot and he (his party) still got roughly 50% of the votes anyway. As Sarmatian said, the best course is probably to wait until the Russians deal with him themselves and realize that the West is not as antagonistic towards Russia as it currently actually is.


I mean, there is nothing much to say other than you guys are all doing it wrong. I am glad that no matter what, I will always be able to point at two different faces as the reason X decade was terrible.

I am glad that you enjoy your system of perpetual terribleness.

[rvg]

We already overmatch Russia economically and militarily, just not in "boots on the ground".


There's one more weakness that Russia has: traditionally and historically Russian logistics have been shit. They're downright terrible at maintaining a supply chain in good order. Things might have improved for them recently, but with the amount of corruption their military has seen, it's unlikely that their new defense minister had time to clean things up.

[Hax]

I wonder in the local Russians there are also eager to be absorbed into the empire.

Well that is the scary part of course. I only really know one Russian Estonian, and she pretty much hates Putin. Eh.


Yeah, that's why Sweden decided to place as many as 2 (TWO!!) fighter jets on Gotland.

You know, if the first one doesn't keep the Russian Bear at bay, we have a plan(e) to fall back on.

I was surprised to hear Sweden still has an air force.

Ah, just make Russia try to invade Finland again, it'll be fine.

[Kadagar_AV]

There's one more weakness that Russia has: traditionally and historically Russian logistics have been shit. They're downright terrible at maintaining a supply chain in good order. Things might have improved for them recently, but with the amount of corruption their military has seen, it's unlikely that their new defense minister had time to clean things up.

So they send twice as much as needed, what's the problem?

[rvg]

So they send twice as much as needed, what's the problem?
No problem, more stuff to steal!

[Kadagar_AV]

No problem, more stuff to steal!

You didn't get my point.

The Russian army, in a situation, would be supplied. At high costs, sure. But they would be.



Just like the Olympics. Might have costed more than expected, but they got the job done.

EDIT: Oh, and even the aristocracy of Russia would be patriotic if their life line were at risk. So, less stealing.

[rvg]

You didn't get my point.

The Russian army, in a situation, would be supplied. At high costs, sure. But they would be.

No, I understood what you meant, and you're right about elevated costs and all, but it's not just a matter of theft: they can send the best machine guns to the front lines and then supply them with ammo of wrong caliber. Or send out 10000 boots, all of them being left ones. Stuff like that. It's an attitude problem where people just don't care if they do things correctly, properly and in good faith.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm still not sure about that. Russia has some really good high-tech and a lot of their gear is underestimated. Other people have made that mistake before.

Russia also still runs a lot of units on conscripts who are only in for a year - the average British soldier is in for five. High levels of corruption make it likely that Russia has unknown shortages of expensive kit, or a lack of (say) shells for it's tanks.Added to which, corruption may also reveal flaws in bits of kit like boots, which would be pretty terrible.

Having said that - we currently don't have enough ammo for the L30 gun on the Challie two, so British tanks would be under-armed until they restart production of shells.

That was the major motivator behind moving to the German gun, btw, and the issue was actually the power pack rather than the turret. Point being - we have logistical flaws too.

Overall I still think we have an edge because we're more consistent across the board.


I may have gone a bit too far there and sorry about the ad hominem.
I still find that western rhetoric colours him far worse than a lot of people in his own country see him. If Putin is that bad, Russians will find a way to get rid of him. But by giving him good outside excuses and funding NGOs that work against him, we are not helping.

I think I've several times expressed my admiration for Putin's political ability, and I've said I don't think he's "evil" but if he isn't an enemy of the West, he's at least the key political opponent.

"Facist" is still the best way to describe his government though, because he isn't a King.

Oh - and thank you for apologising.


There were enough wars by other presidents, regime changes, attempted regime changes etc.
That these things are historic is of little help when the current admins and large parts of the population seem to follow a very similar line.

Debatable - given that most of that was the Cold War. Still, NATO wasn't the prime tool used to coerce other nations into supporting the US.


Germans want Germany to take a more prominent role on the world stage but noone wants to do this by sending the army overseas.
As for capabilities, that stay-at-home army had more than 3000 tanks, the new one will have less than 300. You can roll over third world countries or the Netherlands with those but against a more competent opponent they're not enough.

This is admittedly a problem, though perhaps no as bad as you might think. if the other 2700 tanks stay in storage they're unlikely to get blown to bits at the start of WWIII and will therefore be avaialble for the meat grinder after the initial blow up.


I think Russia does, but what's your point? That western intelligence has gone rogue and is uncontrollable?

That everybody spies on everybody. If the Germans aren't spying on the US, it's only because they can't.


I agree that he is a power hungry muppet but IIRC he didn't need to manipulate a lot and he (his party) still got roughly 50% of the votes anyway. As Sarmatian said, the best course is probably to wait until the Russians deal with him themselves and realize that the West is not as antagonistic towards Russia as it currently actually is.

I read up on him recently. He's repeatedly manipulated the composition of the Durma, and the ability of opposition candidates to campaign effectively, banned viable alternative political parties...

Tyranny doesn't necessarily mean not holding elections, it just means nobbling your opponents, and we have ample evidence of that via intimidation, kangaroo courts, murder...

About the only election he seems to have won remotely fairly was his second Presidential term - Yeltsin manipulated the situation to make sure he won the first one, Putin made sure he was going to be Prime Minister - then he made sure he would be President again - and I recall accusations of fixing and voter intimidation then.

[Sarmatian]

There's one more weakness that Russia has: traditionally and historically Russian logistics have been shit. They're downright terrible at maintaining a supply chain in good order. Things might have improved for them recently, but with the amount of corruption their military has seen, it's unlikely that their new defense minister had time to clean things up.

On what info are you basing that?

They performed great near the end of the ww2, in eastern Europe, Germany, Manchuria... In Afghanistan they've won every single military confrontation with very little casualties.



I think I've several times expressed my admiration for Putin's political ability, and I've said I don't think he's "evil" but if he isn't an enemy of the West, he's at least the key political opponent.


And why do you think that is?

Can something be done, short of invading Russia and forcibly removing him from power? Do you think there is way of dealing with him politically or do you believe he's a loose cannon, who's only interested in getting as much territory as possible under his control?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yes. If we were to wipe out a few land divisions in Crimea in the event that he doesn't leave after referendum, he may get the picture. The US government needs to meet extraterritorial Russian aggression with force. What would he do? We will secure Eastern Europe and destabilize Russia from within - we thought this could be done diplomatically, but clearly force is required.

Putin is correct that this has become the plan, but he is incorrect that it was the plan all along.

[Kagemusha]

For the OP. I think it all depends on the point of view.

If we look at the European capabilities at basic level. Europeans taking care of their own defense is completely viable.
Total defense spending of EU countries is 274,213 billion, which is second only to US spending globally. Compared to Russia´s 90.7 billion it is almost three times larger. Those numbers also still exclude non EU countries from Europe like Norway and Switzerland.
Thanks to NATO and other defense partnerships inside Europe. I do not see huge problems in building up an effective organisation and chain of command for European forces. Thus if we look at it from purely monetary and military point of view. European countries could quite effectively defend and even dominate their regional sphere.

To me the problem currently is EU. EU lacks necessary democratic institutions and checks and balances, to be allowed to wield such power. Other problem is that if EU remains as it is and is essentially a cooperation institution between individual countries. Individual foreign policies of countries would most likely hamper effective cooperation in many cases.

So in my view the biggest problem for mutual European military cooperation without NATO is that Europe is not at level of integration for such to happen. Thus for meantime NATO is best option for mutual defense of European countries as i do not see USA individually withdrawing from NATO as NATO is lead by it, while i think if i was from USA, that would be exactly what i would support.

In the end i see NATO as best option for European countries for the moment and future unless there will be some drastic changes in EU, which would allow me to change my opinion. I hope my own country and Sweden would also apply for NATO, so the lines inside Europe would become less murky, but even in this current situation majority of my countrymen are against such..Thats democracy, we get what majority wants.

EDIT: For those who voted for the last option. Should Russia also be in NATO as it is European country, while of course also Asian. ~;)

[rvg]

On what info are you basing that? They performed great near the end of the ww2, in eastern Europe, Germany, Manchuria...
The Manchurian campaign of WW2 was probably the pinnacle of performance of the Russian Army. It's never been that kind of well oiled machine before or since. Winter War was not just a tactical but also a logistical nightmare. Same with the early months of WW2. Same with WW1 and Russo-Japanese war. Russian mentality overall is very prone to screwing things up and not caring. It's just the way they are.


Can something be done, short of invading Russia and forcibly removing him from power?
Yes, actually. If he's kicked out of Crimea by force, Russians themselves will remove him from power. He'll be considered a disgrace no longer fit to rule Russia. As for us marching on Moscow? You don't ever march on Moscow, everybody knows that.

[HopAlongBunny]

I think Kage sums up the situation.
NATO is a unified command, logistics structure; no point re-inventing the wheel.
The US likes it because it maintains influence in an important part of the world; Europe likes it because it offloads some costs and is hard for any one member to abuse for their own ends.
Keeping NATO avoids a lot of dick-swinging arguments over who needs to do what, and who is subordinate to whom.

[Kadagar_AV]

The Manchurian campaign of WW2 was probably the pinnacle of performance of the Russian Army. It's never been that kind of well oiled machine before or since. Winter War was not just a tactical but also a logistical nightmare. Same with the early months of WW2. Same with WW1 and Russo-Japanese war. Russian mentality overall is very prone to screwing things up and not caring. It's just the way they are.


Yes, actually. If he's kicked out of Crimea by force, Russians themselves will remove him from power. He'll be considered a disgrace no longer fit to rule Russia. As for us marching on Moscow? You don't ever march on Moscow, everybody knows that.

And people call me racist...

Anyway, Russians are much like you and me. They have a different history, but when I met them, I can relate.

It's not like they are Arabs or Africans.

They are white people from a modern state. They cherish the same beliefs you do at large, heck, in many questions Russia is WAY closer to USA than to Europe - gay rights as an example.

Stop falling for the propaganda. Visit Russia, you would be surprised.

[rvg]

And people call me racist...

Anyway, Russians are much like you and me. They have a different history, but when I met them, I can relate.

It's not like they are Arabs or Africans.

They are white people from a modern state. They cherish the same beliefs you do at large, heck, in many questions Russia is WAY closer to USA than to Europe - gay rights as an example.

Stop falling for the propaganda. Visit Russia, you would be surprised.

Oh get off your high horse. I was born and raised in Russia and intimately know those people. I'm as much of a Russian as any of them. I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names.

[Pannonian]

The Manchurian campaign of WW2 was probably the pinnacle of performance of the Russian Army. It's never been that kind of well oiled machine before or since.

Russian Army in Manchuria, British Army in the 100 days, US Army in GW1, German Army during Barbarossa. Perhaps a query more suited to the Monastery, but what were the peaks of the armies of other major powers? Relative to their times, of course.

[Kadagar_AV]

Oh get off your high horse. I was born and raised in Russia and intimately know those people. I'm as much of a Russian as any of them. I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names.

Oh? Had no idea.

Your view still differ from mine though.

[Hax]

Oh get off your high horse. I was born and raised in Russia and intimately know those people. I'm as much of a Russian as any of them. I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names.

This was satisfying to read.

[Brenus]

"I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names." In doing what exactly did you EARN these rights?

"If we were to wipe out a few land divisions in Crimea in the event that he doesn't leave after referendum, he may get the picture." And what is you are wiped out? Or if after having wiped out the Russians, the locals start to shoot at you as YOU will be the invaders in Crimea? Do you kill them all and change the populace that refuses to do what you want? Because all the pro-war are avoiding one point: what do the locals want? Crimea is a autonomous Province with Parliament. So, will you impose a dictatorship on Crimea?

[Kadagar_AV]

"I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names." In doing what exactly did you EARN these rights?

Being there?

I think his statement is idiotic, but I can't flame his personal opinion on life experience.

[Kagemusha]

Well, if you'd asked me two months ago I'd have said NATO should encompass as many nations as possible (including Russia) in order to counter China, but since then things have changed a bit. Europe is not a theater America should be spending superpower bucks at. We've got too much to pay for at home to focus on the entire world, and NATO isn't helping us with China, so I say phase it out. Once Europeans have to defend their own interests and pay for their own superpower-scaled military industrial complex it'll be interesting to see if they also develop a rash of chickenhawks to go with it.

Like i said, this is not a spending issue. EU countries combined already spend more then China and Russia combined and i cant see Europe ever starting to compete with USA in that department, at least i hope i will be long dead when such day would come.

[rvg]

If China really wanted to expand, they would have already done so. There is no NATO there to stop them. If they went after Laos or Vietnam, I doubt many would care. Besides, China already broke some teeth in Vietnam once. As for going against India, India can handle itself just fine imho. The rest of Chinese disputes are maritime, and their navy as of today isn't strong enough to challenge us over, say, Taiwan.

[Kagemusha]

If the EU already spends more than China and Russia combined, and it still relies on NATO logistics and NATO frameworks to operate in a theoretical global war, then I shudder to imagine the money the EU would have to spend to out-and-out replace NATO. Have fun with that. Maybe we can spend the savings on real universal healthcare? :yes:

EU is not a singularity, so lot of European spending is used on overlapping factors. But i agree and i think so does many others. Western hemisphere should really think again what they are using their military spending. You guys still spend almost three times what EU countries, more then four times what China and about seven times what Russia does and what you get for that money?

[rvg]

...You guys still spend almost three times what EU countries, more then four times what China and about seven times what Russia does and what you get for that money?

I think we're about to find out.

[Kagemusha]

Its a strategic singularity or its a strategic liability. I refer to a whole, singular Europe on purpose.
'
There is no such thing you are referring into. NATO is the factual strategic singularity when it comes to most European security and that is the choice of both USA and European countries. EU is nothing more then partial monetary Union and otherwise a cooperative organism for individual European countries with plans of possible expansion with different expectations for different countries. Let us stick with this reality we live in my friend.:yes:


I think we're about to find out.

I am leaning into direction that we arent and sincerely hope so as well.

[Kagemusha]

Its a changing reality. America has been pulling out of Europe for years. If Europe had acted quicker maybe Russia wouldn't be bullying your borders.

Speculation. Of course US have been pulling their troops from Europe as you have to even send your National Guards units to act as regulars to crisis zones in order to have enough boots in the ground. Now we again get back to the spending issues of Western hemisphere.

[Husar]

Well, if you'd asked me two months ago I'd have said NATO should encompass as many nations as possible (including Russia) in order to counter China, but since then things have changed a bit. Europe is not a theater America should be spending superpower bucks at. We've got too much to pay for at home to focus on the entire world, and NATO isn't helping us with China, so I say phase it out. Once Europeans have to defend their own interests and pay for their own superpower-scaled military industrial complex it'll be interesting to see if they also develop a rash of chickenhawks to go with it.

Funny guy, we already have such a thing, it may just not be as apparent as it is in the US because we do not talk about it as much.

http://www.uk.peacelink.org/gmd/articles/art_27.html

I mean we're the continent that invented the World War, of course we have an abundance of military manufacturers. Or had, before they turned into a few megacompanies. I'm not sure whether scale is a problem, the only thing stopping us from churning out another 600 Leopard 2 and selling them to our best friends in Saudi Arabia is apparently politics, although I think that one is not finally decided yet.

And there are still countless smaller companies all over Europe that design their own gear or specialize on upgrading existing gear etc. Poland upgrade their own T-72s, I think the Czech design their own tanks etc. The bigger nations often each have a company for everything if it isn't part of a megacorporation yet.

Heckler & Koch, FN Herstal and countless premium small arms manufacturers such as Mauser, Walther and so on are/were European and even the mighty USA use their designs. The M60 used the British L7 gun, the Abrams uses the Rheinmetall L44, your infantry uses the FN Minimi and so on and on. I'm not sure why exactly one would think we are lacking in terms of arms manufacturing capabilites. Quite a few people in Europe think we have way too many and export way too many death machines to conflict zones and elsewhere.

[rvg]

If I was prez I'd pull out right away, leaving only a business card with my number for Merkel to call when she's ready to beg for Abrams and F22s.

I hear you, but if we pull out now, it'll only make it more difficult to ...umm... squeeze back in and finish the job so it all comes to its proper conclusion.

[Kagemusha]

How do you guys continue to see yourselves as so morally superior? You don't to use your military indutrial complex because of us, but you're happy to sell arms and judge us while we protect you?

If I was prez I'd pull out right away, leaving only a business card with my number for Merkel to call when she's ready to beg for Abrams and F22s.

I kind of said the same when i speculated how i would view the NATO if i were American. Still apparently your leaders aka majority of US voters think that influence in Europe is worth spending certain billions and who are the Euros to complain? ~D

[rvg]

I kind of said the same when i speculated how i would view the NATO if i were American. Still apparently your leaders aka majority of US voters think that influence in Europe is worth spending certain billions and who are the Euros to complain? ~D

It's not as much about who influences Europe as it is about who doesn't influence Europe. We can't allow another Iron Curtain.

[Sarmatian]

The Manchurian campaign of WW2 was probably the pinnacle of performance of the Russian Army. It's never been that kind of well oiled machine before or since. Winter War was not just a tactical but also a logistical nightmare. Same with the early months of WW2. Same with WW1 and Russo-Japanese war. Russian mentality overall is very prone to screwing things up and not caring. It's just the way they are.

Yeah, Hitler and Napoleon had thoughts along similar lines - we only need to kick the door and the whole rotten edifice will come down.

In reality, after getting the bearings, the Soviet army performed quite good, unparalleled to any other combatant in the war, except Germany between 1939 and 1941. After that we didn't have any conflict even remotely similar in scope to check anyone's performance but they performed well in Afghanistan, despite many western sources claiming that Afghanistan showed the Soviet military was a paper tiger. They performed well in Czechoslovakia, penetrating the border at several hundred different points without anyone noticing. They were in control of the country before west figured out what was happening. In 2008, even though they were unprepared, they pushed back and utterly defeated Georgian army, which was preparing for the offensive for months, within a few days. Now, they've managed to take control of Crimea without firing a single shot.

Those myths often hurt badly those who believed in them.


Yes, actually. If he's kicked out of Crimea by force, Russians themselves will remove him from power. He'll be considered a disgrace no longer fit to rule Russia. As for us marching on Moscow? You don't ever march on Moscow, everybody knows that.

That would hurt his prestige severely, no doubt. Would it be enough and can it be pulled off, within the cost the west is willing to pay...


destabilize Russia from within - we thought this could be done diplomatically, but clearly force is required.


And this is the crux of the problem the west has with Russia, as I believe this opinion is not uncommon among many western, especially American, politicians.

Russia must be destabilized, impoverished, impotent, with no sphere of influence of its own and dependent on the west for money and protection. Every time we press the reset button hoping to convince Russia that it is in its own best interest but every time they fail to see it.

Pro-tip: Stop doing that, accept that Russia will wield significant influence in the world based on its economic and military power and you'll see how the "Problem of Russia" disappears over night. Russia's also not completely at ease with the rise of China, they'd much rather be with Europe, with which they have cultural, political, social, religious and economic ties, but if you poke someone in the eye long enough...

[Kagemusha]

It's not as much about who influences Europe as it is about who doesn't influence Europe. We can't allow another Iron Curtain.

Maybe if the case is such. Why dont you just send those billions as direct monetary aid for European militaries? ~D

[Kagemusha]

That money is taxpayer money, and should be spent on the poor. :shrug: Europe has come a long way since the Marshal Plan, we just don't need to be there.

Such are World politics..

[Husar]

How do you guys continue to see yourselves as so morally superior? You don't to use your military indutrial complex because of us, but you're happy to sell arms and judge us while we protect you?

First of all, the people who judge you the harshest are usually the ones who also think we should not sell or even produce arms at all.
Secondly, there are a lot of grey areas between that and what the USA are doing.
Thirdly, YOU came here and you founded NATO to protect YOUR interests, no? Hitler never invited you...
Fourthly, I'm not sure why you think the plan of firing tactical nuclear warheads at advancing soviet tanks in the middle of Germany should make Germans incredibly thankful. We were about to lose either way it seems. Better red than dead!


If I was prez I'd pull out right away, leaving only a business card with my number for Merkel to call when she's ready to beg for Abrams and F22s.

:laugh4:
Again, your Abrams uses a German gun which we have since improved. We also had a 140mm gun project that was abandoned due to the costs after the Cold War ended. I have no idea why we should beg for your tanks, we produced thousands of Leopards of all kinds. The first tanks the US used in WW1 were french and again, even your most modern one uses European parts. European scientists invented the jet engine and brought you to the moon, your F-22 is only a slight improvement over the Ho-229 with some propaganda added on top! :stare: :creep:

On the topic of NATO and countries joining it. I read today that part of the reason Russia feels threatened is that the west promised Gorbachev in 1990 not to expand NATO beyond the Elbe river, which was obviously a promise that wasn't kept at all. I'm not sure whether more countries joining would improve anything or just make Russia even more desperate to secure strategically important territory for itself.

[gaelic cowboy]

If I was prez I'd pull out right away, leaving only a business card with my number for Merkel to call when she's ready to beg for Abrams and F22s.


I hear you, but if we pull out now, it'll only make it more difficult to ...umm... squeeze back in and finish the job so it all comes to its proper conclusion.


Dont worry lads the Brits will let ye have the ports and Ireland's "neutrality" will become ignored so America can use a handy refueling point in Shannon.

Its the continentals ye will have to worry about.

[rvg]

Yeah, Hitler and Napoleon had thoughts along similar lines - we only need to kick the door and the whole rotten edifice will come down.
They marched on Moscow. They deserved to get their asses handed back to them on a platter.


In reality, after getting the bearings, the Soviet army performed quite good, unparalleled to any other combatant in the war, except Germany between 1939 and 1941.
After getting the bearings, sure. Russo-Japanese war ended before they had the chance to get the bearings though. Defending against a directed, overwhelming blitzkrieg confined to a very specific region is not exactly a Russian forte. Just gotta know where to stop. Having said that, of course the preparation should presume that the enemy supply chain would be functioning flawlessly.


That would hurt his prestige severely, no doubt. Would it be enough and can it be pulled off, within the cost the west is willing to pay...
If we're drawn into Ukraine, might as well get drawn into Crimea. Just gotta stay out of Russia proper.

[PanzerJaeger]

It exists so that isolationists like Panzer and ICSD can't waste thousands more live by keeping you out for several years AGAIN.

The American politicians of the Post-War years understood the character of their nation, and they understood that the US needed to be forced to do what was morally right to protect the European democracies, because otherwise you wouldn't.

I am certainly no isolationist. I simply believe in the stabilizing power of rational self interest. It is when people begin to talk about moral imperatives that the geopolitical balance goes awry.

The US had and has no moral obligation to protect European democracies. The country was founded on the idea of charting its own path separate and distinct from Europe and spent the majority of its early history fighting to remain independent. The British burned down the White House and came very close to supporting the Confederacy. The fact that the US found it expedient to ally with Britain (and France) during the 20th Century does not make the two nations eternal allies. In the first instance, the US had literally no interest in the outcome of the conflict other than getting its loans paid; in the second, Roosevelt's imperial ambitions forced the nation into the conflict.

Maintaining the sovereignty of Western European nations was... again... expedient as the US and Russia jockeyed for power and influence during the Cold War. However, those days have long since passed. Today, Europe is irrelevant to US interests, and should be left to its own devices. That part of the world has essentially become a retrograde welfare state in decline. Only Germany continues to demonstrate the kind of economic output and development worth fighting to keep in the US sphere of influence, but that is due in large part to unsustainable currency manipulation. US focus and energy should be devoted to the growing battle with China over natural resources; one in which the US is losing badly. The dynamic, growing economies of South America, Asia, and Africa are far more attractive and important to US interests than the stagnation in Europe.

There is absolutely no real threat to Europe proper from Putin's Russia, but in the event of a hypothetical invasion, why should the US be bothered to care about the outcome? The US economy is simply too large to ignore for whoever controls the continent. It is ridiculous that the US has been thrust into the Crimean 'crisis'. Putin returning Crimea to Russia is a European problem, not an American one. The US should be courting Putin, and doing all that it can to break up the new Chinese-Russian co-alignment, just as Kissinger did during the Cold War. If that means allowing Putin to reconstitute the Soviet Union's holdings, why should the US really be concerned?

NATO and the US-Western European alliances are artifacts from a different time that have become unhealthy for both sides. The US is forced to devote precious resources and energy to a part of the world that does not matter any longer and the once-major European powers have been rendered completely impotent. I grew up in the era of the 'Special Relationship', but it is still almost unbelievable to see the political leadership of what was less than a century ago one of the greatest empires in history blather on about being America's bitch... to see it dragged into wars that were clearly meant to further US interests. And when those leaders decided to take the lead in their own third world intervention, they could not even topple a third world, tin pot dictator without dear Uncle Sam stepping in when they ran out of missiles. And they do not dare attempt to take on the incredible military might of Assad's Syria without President Obama's green light. After years of US security guarantees, European nations have so neutered their political and military influence, they can no longer act independently to assert their own interests. It's just pathetic, and Europe can do better.

Both the US and Europe would be strengthened by more independent and assertive European powers. Both sides would be forced to assess and justify alliances and agreements, instead of having to view their geopolitical relations within the constraints of an outdated view of the world. Chances are, the two sides would likely still work together quite a bit, but only if both benefited from it - which is the way it should be.

[rvg]

I am certainly no isolationist... The US had and has no moral obligation to protect European democracies.

I'll give you a good reason to protect Europe: the dollar. It is our main export and our greatest contribution to the world economy. If any single country controls the European continent it will be able to ditch the dollar. EU with its Euro is not a threat because:
1. It's too decentralized
2. It's not our enemy

If Russia or any other totalitarian power takes over Europe, the dollar's world domination will be broken and our economy will more or less go down the toilet. That's why the old USSR and the Eastern Bloc were so dangerous to us: they did not depend on the dollar. Since the fall of the USSR dollar's power has grown tremendously: it would be extremely painful for us if that suddenly changes.
So gear up for war, Panzer, those benjamins won't protect themselves.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't see why NATO has to go in order for Europe to bolster its defense spending. NATO has not caused the US to reduce it's own spending.

Europeans think that they don't need to spend money on defense because the US created NATO to deter them from it. Their reluctance to expand militaries have grown from a seed that we had planted out of force. The time has now come for the US to back off a bit in order for Europe to pursue it's own interests.

Do you think that you have BS military capabilities because you don't like power? No, it is because we did not want budding unknown governments in Europe to have power. We feel more comfortable with many of the European governments now than we did after WW2, so we are letting go of the rubber band. Bounc back and match your population, GDP, and strategic location to hard power projection.

[Husar]

How should Austria project power? Build a carrier fleet on a lake and then try to sail as close to China's coast as possible? Build a strategic bomber force? ICBMs?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

How should Austria project power?

The Downhill

They always seem to have the edge, and the rest of the world cannot quite keep up.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So far, I find it interesting that the LEAST valued option is for NATO to continue as is. BR patrons are about evenly divided on "Fold" or "Expand!" No half measures here.

I also find it intriguing that both PVC and ICSD view the treaty as a form of "entrapment" but one says it traps the USA and the other that it traps Europe.....

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh get off your high horse. I was born and raised in Russia and intimately know those people. I'm as much of a Russian as any of them. I have earned my right to criticize them and to call things by their real names.

Wait, I thought you were a Syriac Christian?

:inquisitive:

Regardless, I feel that Panzer's "it's not our business" isolationism - sorry mate but you fit the historical pattern perfectly - proves my point.

You could end up with a real idiot in the White House who thinks that millions of people in dozens of democratic countries have no geo-political value.

[rvg]

Wait, I thought you were a Syriac Christian?

:inquisitive:

I'm both. The fact I can speak Russian doesn't prevent me from also speaking Aramaic :wiseguy:

[Strike For The South]

Regardless, I feel that Panzer's "it's not our business" isolationism - sorry mate but you fit the historical pattern perfectly - proves my point.

You could end up with a real idiot in the White House who thinks that millions of people in dozens of democratic countries have no geo-political value.

Preach

A fascist bully, is a fascist bully and I will not let our own imperfections cloud that.

[Husar]

A fascist bully, is a fascist bully and I will not let our own imperfections cloud that.

That's the problem with the wolf who kept crying wolf or so.

Is a democratic bully better than a fascist bully and do the ones being bullied care?
Is torture by democratic states less torturous? :rolleyes:

Europe didn't attack the USA for invading Iraq, why should Europe attack Russia for invading Ukraine?
We should offer them troops to keep the insurgency down. Oh wait, there probably won't be an insurgency because they're actually welcome.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I am certainly no isolationist. I simply believe in the stabilizing power of rational self interest. It is when people begin to talk about moral imperatives that the geopolitical balance goes awry.
...
There is absolutely no real threat to Europe proper from Putin's Russia, but in the event of a hypothetical invasion, why should the US be bothered to care about the outcome? The US economy is simply too large to ignore for whoever controls the continent. It is ridiculous that the US has been thrust into the Crimean 'crisis'. Putin returning Crimea to Russia is a European problem, not an American one. The US should be courting Putin, and doing all that it can to break up the new Chinese-Russian co-alignment, just as Kissinger did during the Cold War. If that means allowing Putin to reconstitute the Soviet Union's holdings, why should the US really be concerned?


Bah. I cannot disagree more.

I have no taste for the realpolitik of supporting dictators grind their own people down. It always seems to end with the dictators collapsing sooner or alter anyway, but with the population hating us as well.

Why should we do such things to fight against China, anyway? China isn't annexing anyone; of course they're not a desperate kleptocracy with a declining population like Russia. Heck, most Chinese citizens like Americans.

And even if we did acquiesce to Putin, who says he'd actually help us against China?


Oh wait, there probably won't be an insurgency because they're actually welcome.

Because the USSR deported the Tartars to Uzbekistan where tens of thousands of them died and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

But oh wait, the US invaded Iraq, boohoo.

Bah, I'm letting your trolling get to me.

CR

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's the problem with the wolf who kept crying wolf or so.

Is a democratic bully better than a fascist bully and do the ones being bullied care?
Is torture by democratic states less torturous? :rolleyes:

Europe didn't attack the USA for invading Iraq, why should Europe attack Russia for invading Ukraine?
We should offer them troops to keep the insurgency down. Oh wait, there probably won't be an insurgency because they're actually welcome.

Putin is still worse.

Our leaders sometimes oppress people - it's Putin's MO, and not just filthy foreigners, either - he opresses Godd Russians too. Never mind the bad Russians.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm both. The fact I can speak Russian doesn't prevent me from also speaking Aramaic :wiseguy:

I deduce that you are in the CIA

:hide:

[Flavius Aetius]

I'll give you a good reason to protect Europe: the dollar. It is our main export and our greatest contribution to the world economy. If any single country controls the European continent it will be able to ditch the dollar. EU with its Euro is not a threat because:
1. It's too decentralized
2. It's not our enemy

But that isn't how currency markets work. It also takes a child's view on the absurd size and heft of the dollar in the global economy. Frankly, this is sensationalist talk. Do you want to tell me about readopting the gold standard now?

As for Nato. Let us pretend that we can keep our bases there after we dissolve NATO (not that far fetched as they really are in everyone's interest). If you are an American you should be ready to throw NATO away with all of the other archaic global institutions that are still around from the Cold War. It is an absurd drain on US resources with very little return for the investment. Now, i'm not saying the Iraq War was right or wrong but the fact that not all NATO countries participated in even the invasion perfectly illustrated the raw, simplified value of the alliance for America. The simple fact of the matter is that the member nations of NATO need the US more than the US needs them. The Libyan conflict highlighted this when the euros needed to ask us for more munitions. At the end of the day NATO countries aren't going to demand we vacate our mutually beneficial bases in their countries if we leave or dissolve NATO but it will sure as hell save America quite a bit of coin.

Looking to the future American foreign policy needs to step off the idealist train and pay a little more attention to pragmatism because it isn't the 90's anymore. The gap between america and her rivals is closing and America needs to realize that new lines have been drawn in the sand. America needs to do an account of all of their proclaimed friends and realize that some of our old friends should be replaced.

(not you mama Britain we love you and the entire commonwealth even if we ran off when we were little)

[Husar]

Because the USSR deported the Tartars to Uzbekistan where tens of thousands of them died and replaced them with ethnic Russians.

Yeah, but that was long ago, doesn't count as I was told. Certainly not Putin's fault.
Noone is blaming Bush for killing the Indians either.


But oh wait, the US invaded Iraq, boohoo.

But oh wait, the Russians annexed Crimea, boohoo.
I mean why should it bother me if Iraq shouldn't?
More people died in the Iraq episode than in Crimea. Way more, so many it's not even funny.
Tell me how Crimea is more of a human tragedy or even a human tragedy at all. How many people had their faces burnt by Molotovs in Crimea and how many in Kiev? Do faces burn with pleasure when neo nazis throw them in the name of freedom and democracy?

I'm still not saying Crimea is a-okay, I'm asking why some people want to start WW3 over it and get their moral outrage meter up far higher than I think is warranted at this point.


Bah, I'm letting your trolling get to me.

CR

If it doesn't agree with American moral superiority, it has to be trolling, yeah right... :rolleyes:


Putin is still worse.

Our leaders sometimes oppress people - it's Putin's MO, and not just filthy foreigners, either - he opresses Godd Russians too. Never mind the bad Russians.

So he's just like the many dictators we supported over the years and still support, but he is bad because he's not our puppet?
Israel oppresses a lot of people and we still support it, it's a democracy but the arabian population often doesn't see that as a big plus when they are treated as second class citizens again. And they take land that other people live on and expell them.

[Hax]

Yeah, but that was long ago, doesn't count as I was told. Certainly not Putin's fault.
Noone is blaming Bush for killing the Indians either.


This was seventy years ago. Some of those people are still alive to this day.

A very important difference between the deportation of people in the Soviet Union and and the treatment of the native Americans in the United States is that firstly, the United States acknowledges that it has happened and has made all kinds of concessions towards them as a result of this. Meanwhile, the Russian government refuses to acknowledge that the Baltic states (for example) were annexed illegally and against their will.

[Husar]

This was seventy years ago. Some of those people are still alive to this day.

I was told in another thread that the bay of pigs invasion was also too long ago to count. Some people from then are still alive today as well.


A very important difference between the deportation of people in the Soviet Union and and the treatment of the native Americans in the United States is that firstly, the United States acknowledges that it has happened and has made all kinds of concessions towards them as a result of this. Meanwhile, the Russian government refuses to acknowledge that the Baltic states (for example) were annexed illegally and against their will.

That's because they have to get over the biggest tragedy of the 20th century, the fall of the Soviet Union, first. It happened in their country and it was only twenty five years ago, some of those people are still alive to this day. Some Americans are still not ready to apologize for slavery today, these things need time. You cannot expect Russia to develop in 10 years what took others around 100 years.
If I'm not mistaken most of the really big atrocities of the USSR happened under Stalin, after him the leaders weren't quite nice guys but they progressively became "nicer" until one of them dissolved the USSR. Meanwhile the West hasn't acknowledged anything of that and always sees Stalin when it looks at Putin. Makes sense that the Russians don't care what the West sees because the West only sees what it wants to see.

[Hax]

You cannot compare the Bay of Pigs with the systematic deportation of a group of people to be sent to their deaths.

Did you know that in Estonia, the secret police barged in, told you that you were given 15 minutes, and then they sent you and your entire family away to a place you'd never heard. Keep in mind the first deportations were in June, meaning that many people didn't bring any warm clothes whatsoever and so a great many of them froze to death in Siberia.


That's because they have to get over the biggest tragedy of the 20th century, the fall of the Soviet Union, first. It happened in their country and it was only twenty five years ago, some of those people are still alive to this day.

I think it looks better now.


Some Americans are still not ready to apologize for slavery today, these things need time.

I don't really give what some hick in the Georgia mountains thinks about slavery. This is a matter of statehood and recognition of the terrible atrocities that happened to the peoples under Soviet dominion. Make no mistake, I think the people that suffered the most under the Soviet Union were probably the Russians themselves.


If I'm not mistaken most of the really big atrocities of the USSR happened under Stalin, after him the leaders weren't quite nice guys but they progressively became "nicer" until one of them dissolved the USSR. Meanwhile the West hasn't acknowledged anything of that and always sees Stalin when it looks at Putin.

Yeah, but at the same time the Russian government is still not ready to accept that Stalin was a douchebag of the highest order.


Dude, I wonder why you're so stuck up with the idea that "if the West does it, that means that Russia can do it as well". Even if all what you said just now is exactly the way you make it out to be (because seriously, it's pretty biased), in the end it's got nothing to do with who has the moral high ground. All I know that the last time when Russia started making noises like these, a very great many people suffered.

While I agree that the track record of the United States and the European states in the Middle-East isn't amazing, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq we're not aimed at annexation.

[Greyblades]

But that isn't how currency markets work. It also takes a child's view on the absurd size and heft of the dollar in the global economy. Frankly, this is sensationalist talk. Do you want to tell me about readopting the gold standard now?

As for Nato. Let us pretend that we can keep our bases there after we dissolve NATO (not that far fetched as they really are in everyone's interest). If you are an American you should be ready to throw NATO away with all of the other archaic global institutions that are still around from the Cold War. It is an absurd drain on US resources with very little return for the investment. Now, i'm not saying the Iraq War was right or wrong but the fact that not all NATO countries participated in even the invasion perfectly illustrated the raw, simplified value of the alliance for America. The simple fact of the matter is that the member nations of NATO need the US more than the US needs them. The Libyan conflict highlighted this when the euros needed to ask us for more munitions. At the end of the day NATO countries aren't going to demand we vacate our mutually beneficial bases in their countries if we leave or dissolve NATO but it will sure as hell save America quite a bit of coin.

Looking to the future American foreign policy needs to step off the idealist train and pay a little more attention to pragmatism because it isn't the 90's anymore. The gap between america and her rivals is closing and America needs to realize that new lines have been drawn in the sand. America needs to do an account of all of their proclaimed friends and realize that some of our old friends should be replaced.

(not you mama Britain we love you and the entire commonwealth even if we ran off when we were little)
I might not agree with all you have to say, but I feel obligated to thank you for being one of the the few backroom newcomers in the last year or so that hasnt been fricking nuts.

[Sarmatian]

While I agree that the track record of the United States and the European states in the Middle-East isn't amazing, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq we're not aimed at annexation.

All nations in the world annexed territories. In most cases though, it is easier and less costly to install a puppet regime and support it than to govern directly. I don't understand why is creation of a protectorate so much morally superior to annexation?

[Greyblades]

Because there's a chance with each puppet that the guy propped up actually gives two figs about the people being "protected", whereas forceful annexation nearly always brings in either antagonistic or apathetic governence.

[Sarmatian]

Because there's a small chance with each puppet that the guy propped up actually gives two figs about the people being "protected", whereas annexation pretty much allways brings in either antagonistic or uncaring governence.

On what exactly are you basing this opinion?

Was Cuba better governed with Batista in power than California which was outright annexed? :inquisitive:

[Greyblades]

It's a generalization, and I did say "chance"; there's a fair chance as well that the puppet government is as bad or worse than provincial governers assigned through annexation. I'm saying there's usually a better chance a puppet turns out benevolent than the alternative. Plus California wasnt a forceful annexation, they joined the states willingly and dont really come under my previous post.

[Kagemusha]

You cannot compare the Bay of Pigs with the systematic deportation of a group of people to be sent to their deaths.

Did you know that in Estonia, the secret police barged in, told you that you were given 15 minutes, and then they sent you and your entire family away to a place you'd never heard. Keep in mind the first deportations were in June, meaning that many people didn't bring any warm clothes whatsoever and so a great many of them froze to death in Siberia.



I think it looks better now.



I don't really give what some hick in the Georgia mountains thinks about slavery. This is a matter of statehood and recognition of the terrible atrocities that happened to the peoples under Soviet dominion. Make no mistake, I think the people that suffered the most under the Soviet Union were probably the Russians themselves.



Yeah, but at the same time the Russian government is still not ready to accept that Stalin was a douchebag of the highest order.


Dude, I wonder why you're so stuck up with the idea that "if the West does it, that means that Russia can do it as well". Even if all what you said just now is exactly the way you make it out to be (because seriously, it's pretty biased), in the end it's got nothing to do with who has the moral high ground. All I know that the last time when Russia started making noises like these, a very great many people suffered.

While I agree that the track record of the United States and the European states in the Middle-East isn't amazing, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq we're not aimed at annexation.

Hax. We cant blame modern Russia for the deeds of SU. It is like blaming modern Germany for the deeds of Nazi Germany. Nikita Krushchev criticized Stalin already heavily during 50´s and I do not think modern Russians idolize Stalin, but i can understand that the Great patriotic war is something which is big part of Russian identity still. Demonizing Russia will not get us anywhere and this whole good versus bad talk when it comes to World politics is just naive.

[Sarmatian]

Plus California wasnt a forceful annexation, they joined the states willingly and dont really come under my previous post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War

[Greyblades]

Hrm, a poor choice of words, perhaps I should say "not completely unwanted by the residents" annexation instead of "forceful".


Prior to the U.S. occupation there were approximately 1,500 local Hispanic men (and about 6,500 women and children), commonly called Californios, primarily located in Southern California around Los Angeles.[2] Most of the over 2,000 American immigrants (nearly all adult males) lived in the northern half of California. Most of them approved of the change in government and gave only token resistance to Stockton and Fremont's forces.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_California
Plus as my statement was a generalization one example doesnt really disprove it.

[Hax]

Hax. We cant blame modern Russia for the deeds of SU. It is like blaming modern Germany for the deeds of Nazi Germany. Nikita Krushchev criticized Stalin already heavily during 50´s and I do not think modern Russians idolize Stalin, but i can understand that the Great patriotic war is something which is big part of Russian identity still. Demonizing Russia will not get us anywhere and this whole good versus bad talk when it comes to World politics is just naive.

First let me clarify one thing: I'm not against the referendum in Crimea per se. Although I believe it was illegal, I don't think terms of national law matter much when it comes to situations like these. I can accept that a majority of the population in Crimea wanted to join with Russia.

Well, eh..there's this (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/28/us-russia-stalin-idUSTRE4BR17620081228).

The difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with regards to Germany and Russia respectively, Russia is the legal successor of the Soviet Union. And yes, while I agree that it's useless to blame the contemporary Russian government for the atrocities inflicted upon their own population, the recent rhetoric in Moscow has become increasingly worrying.

To draw a comparison: how would people respond when Germany had just annexed north-western Poland after a referendum there pointed out that a large majority of the population wanted to reunite with Germany, and at the same time, Germany would start talking about the rights of the German-speaking population in Bohemia. I'm not sure how well that would sit with most people.


but i can understand that the Great patriotic war is something which is big part of Russian identity still.

Explains all the neonazis.


Demonizing Russia will not get us anywhere and this whole good versus bad talk when it comes to World politics is just naive.

I believe Russia to be an increasingly aggressive power, and this has spelled doom for most of their neighbouring countries in the past. I still grieve for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

..okay, maybe not seriously, but I do find this trend worrying. Do consider that I spend half of my time nowadays in Estonia, so I'm definitely somewhat biased in this matter.

[Husar]

You cannot compare the Bay of Pigs with the systematic deportation of a group of people to be sent to their deaths.

I didn't.


I think it looks better now.

It does, it was a test. Putin actually said the fall of the USSR was a tragedy and I also disagree with him.


I don't really give what some hick in the Georgia mountains thinks about slavery. This is a matter of statehood and recognition of the terrible atrocities that happened to the peoples under Soviet dominion. Make no mistake, I think the people that suffered the most under the Soviet Union were probably the Russians themselves.

That might be why Putin doesn't win with 99% of the votes despite doing his best to keep the opposition down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_presidential_election,_2012
Supposedly he even inflated these 63% by busing voters around.


Yeah, but at the same time the Russian government is still not ready to accept that Stalin was a douchebag of the highest order.

Not many Western States admit their mistakes while the people who supported those mistakes are still around. Turkey is a NATO member and still hasn't admitted any genocides, censors the internet and so on. Whether blacks are actually equal in the US today is still being debated, regardless of what the government admitted. We're not treating our immigrants great either. There's a lot of xenophobia that people do not express because a minority dictates what can and can not be said in public somehow. I'm just curious to see what happens when Putin and friends will inevitably be gone, I'd like us not to start WW3 before that.


Dude, I wonder why you're so stuck up with the idea that "if the West does it, that means that Russia can do it as well". Even if all what you said just now is exactly the way you make it out to be (because seriously, it's pretty biased), in the end it's got nothing to do with who has the moral high ground. All I know that the last time when Russia started making noises like these, a very great many people suffered.

Of course it's biased, but so is pretty much everything most Westerners say on the matter. I'm exaggerating my position to make a point and maybe some day some people will realize that they are biased themselves. People in the West love to sit on their "moral highground" and tell others how things should be while their own governments do similar things and their press is just as much full of propaganda as the press in countries they view as "inferior". I'm just sick of the attitude that whenever Russia is mentioned people assume that all russians are dumb fools under a dictatorial leader whose every word is a filthy lie while our leaders are all standing up for freedom and democracy all the time and we should go to war now because "the evil" will spread if we don't!!!!11111

If you think that is so, consider that Putin said there are no WMDs in Iraq, America said there are and who did turn out to be lying/wrong about it? Western superiority is not a given just because we were indoctrinated to think that it is.

As for people suffering, this time more people suffered when the pro-west forces made a noise, how many Crimeans were shot during the annexation and how many policemen were shot during the revolution? Ukraine joining the EU will not make anyone more democratic. The EU isn't even democratic enough itself.


While I agree that the track record of the United States and the European states in the Middle-East isn't amazing, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq we're not aimed at annexation.

Annexation and installing a puppet regime are just two sides of the same coin to me. With the former you install a governor who does what you want and with the latter you call the guy a president/prime minister but he still does what you want. Not to forget that what the population wants should also count to some extent.

[Husar]

Hrm, a poor choice of words, perhaps I should say "not completely unwanted by the residents" annexation instead of "forceful".

So, just like Crimea then?

[Husar]

To draw a comparison: how would people respond when Germany had just annexed north-western Poland after a referendum there pointed out that a large majority of the population wanted to reunite with Germany, and at the same time, Germany would start talking about the rights of the German-speaking population in Bohemia. I'm not sure how well that would sit with most people.

If Poland had just had a Neo-Nazi backed revolution, I would applaud this effort, but there is another problem, there are no Germans there anymore so why would the referendum turn out pro-German and why would we use a rhetoric of bringing our own people home?

So to make another comparison, what do you think would happen if the Communist party of Mexico allied with the drug cartels and expelled the corrupt Mexican government, then invited China and Iran for joint military exercises near the US border?

[Greyblades]

So, just like Crimea then?

Huh, your choice of double post seems to indicate you seem to think that a zinger worthy of such emphasis, yet it only works if I was a great supporter of crimea staying in the ukraine, which I'm not in particular, nor do I believe I expressed otherwise.
Of course seeing as you triple posted you might have just forgotten what the edit button does.

[Sarmatian]

Hrm, a poor choice of words, perhaps I should say "not completely unwanted by the residents" annexation instead of "forceful".

Plus as my statement was a generalization one example doesnt really disprove it.

Actually, since you made the statement, the burden of proof is with you.

I just didn't agree with you. There's nothing to indicate that either is inherently better or worse for the local population. Both can work and both can fail spectacularly.

[Kagemusha]

First let me clarify one thing: I'm not against the referendum in Crimea per se. Although I believe it was illegal, I don't think terms of national law matter much when it comes to situations like these. I can accept that a majority of the population in Crimea wanted to join with Russia.

Well, eh..there's this (http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/28/us-russia-stalin-idUSTRE4BR17620081228).

The difference between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union with regards to Germany and Russia respectively, Russia is the legal successor of the Soviet Union. And yes, while I agree that it's useless to blame the contemporary Russian government for the atrocities inflicted upon their own population, the recent rhetoric in Moscow has become increasingly worrying.

To draw a comparison: how would people respond when Germany had just annexed north-western Poland after a referendum there pointed out that a large majority of the population wanted to reunite with Germany, and at the same time, Germany would start talking about the rights of the German-speaking population in Bohemia. I'm not sure how well that would sit with most people.



Explains all the neonazis.



I believe Russia to be an increasingly aggressive power, and this has spelled doom for most of their neighbouring countries in the past. I still grieve for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

..okay, maybe not seriously, but I do find this trend worrying. Do consider that I spend half of my time nowadays in Estonia, so I'm definitely somewhat biased in this matter.

I also spend most my days in Finland. I am sitting now at Helsinki, less then 300 kilometers from Saint Petersburg. Soviet Union took large swathes of land away from my country, including third largest city of Finland at the time. Still it has nothing to do with modern Russia. What has happened has happened.

I can understand that you are worried as we all should be, but did anyone really think that Russia would simply lay down and die gradually after SU was dissolved? People are now acting like only the West has some sort of mandate to drive their interests home internationally, which i simply cant understand. We cant ignore Russia as World power and at the same time blame them for actions they take. Isolating Russia is not the answer, but recognizing Russia and not trying to undermine them in every chance will quite more likely do the trick. Russians as others are in the end more interested about doing business and living peace, just like most of the rest of us.

Solution to these current problems is that West will have to understand that it can only push so far to Russian interest zone. Baltic countries are now secure inside NATO and attack on one NATO country is attack against them all. Did anybody really think that Russia would give up their sphere of influence at Ukraine, thus completing the expansion of Western sphere of influence to Russian borders everywhere?

[Hax]

That's all very nice and well, but it works under the assumption that Putin is a rational man. I'm not so sure about that.

Moscow expresses concern for Estonia's Russian minority (http://time.com/31494/russia-expresses-concern-for-estonias-russian-community/)

Amazing timing, too.

[Kagemusha]

That's all very nice and well, but it works under the assumption that Putin is a rational man. I'm not so sure about that.

Moscow expresses concern for Estonia's Russian minority (http://time.com/31494/russia-expresses-concern-for-estonias-russian-community/)

Amazing timing, too.

Putin is ex KGB Colonel. Cold and calculated and like i have said before i am exactly not fan of him. Russia had a a large military manouvers for land troops a week a go near Finnish border and a large aerial manouver at our borders only days a go. Last week Russia cut off all benefits for the TIR heavy inland trucking from Finland to Russia unilaterally. Do you see me weeping over it? It is just the name of the game.

As NATO country. Estonia is of course going to keep getting heat from Russia as long as the crisis will continue. During this crisis Russia is going to use any method possible in order to apply pressure towards West, just like West is doing towards Russia. You need two to Tango.

[Husar]

Huh, your choice of double post seems to indicate you seem to think that a zinger worthy of such emphasis, yet it only works if I was a great supporter of crimea staying in the ukraine, which I'm not in particular, nor do I believe I expressed otherwise.

It works as long as the right people read it. I'm not arguing against the world and I do not hate you.


Of course seeing as you triple posted you might have just forgotten what the edit button does.

It was still early in the morning in my head and I got carried away when I saw that the thread had progressed half a page while I wrote a single reply. Not to forget that if people post while I edit my post, there's a good chance they will never see what I edited in.


That's all very nice and well, but it works under the assumption that Putin is a rational man. I'm not so sure about that.

Moscow expresses concern for Estonia's Russian minority (http://time.com/31494/russia-expresses-concern-for-estonias-russian-community/)

Amazing timing, too.

If they want to annex Estonia you can sign me up for the anti-russian rage crowd, I'll even wear my red armband with the funny sign on it if that guarantees that I will be seen as part of a pro-west movement.

What about transnistria? They have already installed their own little dictatorship because that's the way they like it. They have already started a civil war with their former government of Moldova, to which they still belong nominally and they have already 1500 russian soldiers on their territory who apparently stopped the civil war with their presence. Should NATO go in and return Transnistria home to Moldova and why has Russia not annexed it yet? It has been closer to annexation than Crimea for over a decade now and yet it has not happened yet. Neither did I hear about any outrage, although I may have been to young before being outraged about it became too boring for our press.
I have honestly no idea what to think about it.

[Greyblades]

Actually, since you made the statement, the burden of proof is with you.
Yes it is, however you didnt ask for proof you presented a counter point.

I just didn't agree with you. There's nothing to indicate that either is inherently better or worse for the local population. Both can work and both can fail spectacularly.
Yes both can work and both can fail, but I take the factor of nationalistic favouratism: a general increased empathy towards what is seen as a fellow countryman and apply it to the dynamic of governance. I come to the conclusion that a governer, or king or sultan or whatever you call the man that rules the area, that sees his subjects as his countryman will treat them better than some clerk from far away moscow or washington who sees the people he's been told to govern as a bunch of smelly foreigners who only matters to him as long as keeping them in lineg gets him a government paycheck.
There's always exceptions and anomalys of the gentle governer being better to the people under him than the asshole princling who his government replaced but I believe in comparison a puppet will, say, 55 out of a 100 be less inclined to screw over the people than a direct foreign governer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What about transnistria? They have already installed their own little dictatorship because that's the way they like it. They have already started a civil war with their former government of Moldova, to which they still belong nominally and they have already 1500 russian soldiers on their territory who apparently stopped the civil war with their presence. Should NATO go in and return Transnistria home to Moldova and why has Russia not annexed it yet? It has been closer to annexation than Crimea for over a decade now and yet it has not happened yet. Neither did I hear about any outrage, although I may have been to young before being outraged about it became too boring for our press.
I have honestly no idea what to think about it.

An excellent question - and a worrying one given that Transnistria is part of Moldova - which is to East Germany what Romania is to West Germany. Which is to say, Stalin forcibly separated them prior to WWII - leading directly to the Fascist dictatorship in Romania. The political class in both Romania and Moldova aspire to re-unification, and indeed the flag of Moldova is the Romanian tri-colour with the Moldavian crest added.

The people in both countries are somewhat more wary, but Romania is issuing passports to Moldovians and both sides recognise that, culturally and ethnically Moldovians and Romanians are fundamentally the same.

Now - most of Moldova's industrial base is apparently in Transnistria, and about 40% of the population are Moldovan, 60% Russia. Romania wants all of Moldova and is pushing hard for EU and NATO integration to try and ease re-unification. Just to make the situation stickier, Romania is in NATO and has a mutual defence pact with Moldova, meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

Oh - and Putin is considering their application to join Russia, now.

[Sarmatian]

An excellent question - and a worrying one given that Transnistria is part of Moldova - which is to East Germany what Romania is to West Germany. Which is to say, Stalin forcibly separated them prior to WWII - leading directly to the Fascist dictatorship in Romania. The political class in both Romania and Moldova aspire to re-unification, and indeed the flag of Moldova is the Romanian tri-colour with the Moldavian crest added.

The people in both countries are somewhat more wary, but Romania is issuing passports to Moldovians and both sides recognise that, culturally and ethnically Moldovians and Romanians are fundamentally the same.

That's more or less what Russia did in Crimea, although I remember reading about Moldova and the opinion polls over a large period were against unification with Romania. Maybe something changed in the last few years. Personally, I don't care, if they want, l don't mind, if they don't, I also don't mind.


But NATO...

Just to make the situation stickier, Romania is in NATO and has a mutual defence pact with Moldova, meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.
...doesn't work that way. NATO is obliged to intervene if war is declared on a member state, not on an ally of a member state.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's more or less what Russia did in Crimea, although I remember reading about Moldova and the opinion polls over a large period were against unification with Romania. Maybe something changed in the last few years. Personally, I don't care, if they want, l don't mind, if they don't, I also don't mind.


But NATO...

...doesn't work that way. NATO is obliged to intervene if war is declared on a member state, not on an ally of a member state.

Let me re-quote myself for you


meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

Get it now?

As to the opinion polls, they're not strictly in favour but there are more people with a strongly positive outlook than a negative one, it's not a majority, just the largest minority.

[Sarmatian]

Get it now?


Still doesn't work that way. If Country A is allied with Country B and Country C declares war on Country B, Country A is obliged to declare war on Country C. If country D is in a defensive military alliance with Country A, Country D still isn't required to declare war, even if Country C enters borders of Country A.

Think about it. What you're suggesting is that just by virtue of being allied with a NATO member in a separate agreement, Moldova basically enjoys full protection of NATO, through an alliance with Romania, and none of the responsibilities.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Still doesn't work that way. If Country A is allied with Country B and Country C declares war on Country B, Country A is obliged to declare war on Country C. If country D is in a defensive military alliance with Country A, Country D still isn't required to declare war, even if Country C enters borders of Country A.

Think about it. What you're suggesting is that just by virtue of being allied with a NATO member in a separate agreement, Moldova basically enjoys full protection of NATO, through an alliance with Romania, and none of the responsibilities.nvm

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Article 5 could be the springboard for such a conflict, though that would not automatically be the case.

Presuming that Moldavan forces seek refuge in Romania and that Russian forces both follow them into Romanian territory and attack Romanian forces during such an operation, then Article 5 would likely be invoked.
If, however, Russian forces attacked Moldavan in Romania but then promptly withdrew without action against Romanian forces, the invocation of Article 5 is more problematic.

Should Moldava seek union with Romania, should Romania agree, and should the EU/NATO recognize that amalgamation, THEN Moldavan territory would be covered as Romanian territory under article 5. That's a lot of should that have not yet happened.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Article 5 could be the springboard for such a conflict, though that would not automatically be the case.

Presuming that Moldavan forces seek refuge in Romania and that Russian forces both follow them into Romanian territory and attack Romanian forces during such an operation, then Article 5 would likely be invoked.
If, however, Russian forces attacked Moldavan in Romania but then promptly withdrew without action against Romanian forces, the invocation of Article 5 is more problematic.

Should Moldava seek union with Romania, should Romania agree, and should the EU/NATO recognize that amalgamation, THEN Moldavan territory would be covered as Romanian territory under article 5. That's a lot of should that have not yet happened.

Add to that - should Romanian forces advance into Moldova, and Russian forces then attack them in Romania - which is the most likely scenario to trigger Article five.

Yes Sarmation - the "mutual Defence Pact" which is not merely an "alliance" is designed to drag Romania into a war with Russia and goad Russia into attacking Romania, thereby triggering a response from NATO. Romania would not risk an alliance with Moldova otherwise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Still doesn't work that way. If Country A is allied with Country B and Country C declares war on Country B, Country A is obliged to declare war on Country C. If country D is in a defensive military alliance with Country A, Country D still isn't required to declare war, even if Country C enters borders of Country A.

Think about it. What you're suggesting is that just by virtue of being allied with a NATO member in a separate agreement, Moldova basically enjoys full protection of NATO, through an alliance with Romania, and none of the responsibilities.

Actually you know what - I'm going to quote you, just so I can quote myself at you again.


meaning that should Russia attack Romanian forces INSIDE Romania it will trigger WWIII.

See that word in caps?

See it the third time?

What's the point responding to my post if you haven't read it.

[Sarmatian]

See that word in caps?

See it the third time?

What's the point responding to my post if you haven't read it.

I've read it the first time. The aggressor in a war isn't determined by the territory where the war is fought. In WW2, the war wasn't fought on US soil, rather US was fighting it on German and Japanese soil. That doesn't make USA the aggressor in the war.

So, if Romania declares war on Russia, and Russian army repels them and crosses the border into Romania in order to defeat them, NATO still isn't obligated to declare war on Russia. They may decide to do it, but they're not obligated.

[HoreTore]

There are no obligations in politics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've read it the first time. The aggressor in a war isn't determined by the territory where the war is fought. In WW2, the war wasn't fought on US soil, rather US was fighting it on German and Japanese soil. That doesn't make USA the aggressor in the war.

So, if Romania declares war on Russia, and Russian army repels them and crosses the border into Romania in order to defeat them, NATO still isn't obligated to declare war on Russia. They may decide to do it, but they're not obligated.

Romania isn't going to declare war - it'll just move troops into Moldova's territory - Russia will oblige by attacking those troops without declaring war. All it takes is one Russian missile to land on Romanian troops in Moldova - or to hit Romanian troops whilst being aimed at Moldovian troops - and Romania can invoke the NATO treaty. An attack on Romanian troops in Romania would oblige NATO to respond militarily, but any attack on Romanian troops will at least force NATO leaders to "consult", so even then Russia cannot rely on a complete lack of response from NATO.

Basically - the Romanian-Moldovian pact is designed to make it that much harder for Russia to do in Transnistria what it did in Crimea.

More to the point - your have your example backwards - you said the US was no the aggressor, but according to your logic it was because it attacked Germany, which had not attacked the US, due to Germany's attack on France and Britain. Romania won't be attacking Russia or crossing into Russian territory - Transnistria is in Moldova.


There are no obligations in politics.

Ah - but this is foreign relations, not politics.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

An attack on Romanian troops in Romania would oblige NATO to respond militarily, but any attack on Romanian troops will at least force NATO leaders to "consult", so even then Russia cannot rely on a complete lack of response from NATO...

Unless the other NATO powers had specifically advised Romania that they would not support Romanian efforts outside the extent borders which, in fairness to Sarmatian's general point, might well be the NATO attitude.

[Pannonian]

Unless the other NATO powers had specifically advised Romania that they would not support Romanian efforts outside the extent borders which, in fairness to Sarmatian's general point, might well be the NATO attitude.

A comparable case might be the US troops in Korea. Would NATO be obliged by treaty to respond if North Korea steamroller the US troops there? My guess would be that it's outside the treaty's remit, and any response would be volunteers only.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A comparable case might be the US troops in Korea. Would NATO be obliged by treaty to respond if North Korea steamroller the US troops there? My guess would be that it's outside the treaty's remit, and any response would be volunteers only.

Actually, SK is outside the NATO agreement because of geography. IIRC, the agreement is limited to the geographic borders of those signatories and specifies that anything outside the North Atlantic region is not involved.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, SK is outside the NATO agreement because of geography. IIRC, the agreement is limited to the geographic borders of those signatories and specifies that anything outside the North Atlantic region is not involved.

That's correct - likewise the Falklands are outside the geographic limits even though the Argentine attack otherwise qualified to trigger the treaty. It's notable that, even so, France and America were quietly accommodating in many ways. Which is nice, but had the treaty covered the Falklands, there would have been no war.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Falklands was a cocking shock up in many ways.

1st, Had it been an "Atlantic" treaty and not a "North Atlantic" treaty, you are probably correct as to the deterrence factor.

2nd, I think we failed the special relationship. Perhaps it was wrong of us to develop the special relationship -- there are some even today who feel that Washington's Benign Isolationism and/or Monroe's Europe Keep Out doctrines would be the better way to go. Nevertheless, having entered into the special relationship, when you were attacked in the Falklands we should have issued a joint ultimatum to the Argentines and backed it up with CVNs supporting the BEF as needed. We certainly didn't impede the British effort in that conflict but we aided it a bit fecklessly.

[Pannonian]

What? That war was between North Korea and a force that was flying the flag of the UN, even though most of the troops were American. That war never ended.

If the north launched an invasion there would be a lot more than just the USA obligated to respond.

I thought of it as an example of one of the NATO members putting troops in the way of any potential invasion, simply so they can be attacked and thus trigger a response. PVC suggested that putting Romanian troops in the way would likewise trigger some kind of response. My argument was that (although I didn't know about the geographical restrictions), NATO would only really be obliged to respond if NATO's recognised home soil was attacked, and if a NATO member deliberately put troops outside this to try and trigger a response a la PVC, that's outside the remit of the treaty and any response would be volunteers only.

Who was that Backroomer who was traumatised by his experience of patrolling the Korean border and regarded his re-posting to Vietnam as a relief, even though he got sniped there? Kafirchobee or something.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Falklands was a cocking shock up in many ways.

1st, Had it been an "Atlantic" treaty and not a "North Atlantic" treaty, you are probably correct as to the deterrence factor.

2nd, I think we failed the special relationship. Perhaps it was wrong of us to develop the special relationship -- there are some even today who feel that Washington's Benign Isolationism and/or Monroe's Europe Keep Out doctrines would be the better way to go. Nevertheless, having entered into the special relationship, when you were attacked in the Falklands we should have issued a joint ultimatum to the Argentines and backed it up with CVNs supporting the BEF as needed. We certainly didn't impede the British effort in that conflict but we aided it a bit fecklessly.

Well, yes, but it benefited both countries in the long run. It made Britain look strong internationally, caused an RN buildup which put pressure on the Soviets.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I feel bad for forgetting to vote in the poll until now. I think when it comes to an international crisis, NATO interventions, special relationships and what have you should be reserved when an individual member state no longer feels it can proceed successfully without support. Just because the US and UK are good allies doesn't necessarily mean that we should throw our weight behind every challenge that comes to the UK, and I am sure people in the UK probably feel similarly. Was anyone really thinking that Argentina was going to win an outright war against the UK?

That being said, after trying to reflect on this seriously, I think I have to go with the poll choice on maintaining NATO as it is. If a state wishes to join, well all the merrier, but while I think Putin's Russia is a legitimate threat, we really shouldn't be trying to antagonize him by letting him create a narrative of the West circling around his borders for the kill.

[Furunculus]

In that context, is it finally time for NATO to fold, allowing the European Union to develop a unified command to replace it -- a command that is structured and focused on furthering the agenda of a united Europe.


speaking as a Brit, no, because:
1. the link to the worlds only superpower is the valuable part of NATO for the lesser members
2. the US tend to work on the same lines foreign policy wise as ourselves, so joint action strengthens rather than reduces our preferences
3. not many european nations appear to take defence seriously, as evidenced by their (lack of) commitment to the 2.0% of GDP rule

if NATO does fold then I want bilateral Defence treaty being hammered out with the US on Day 2.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

speaking as a Brit, no, because:
1. the link to the worlds only superpower is the valuable part of NATO for the lesser members
2. the US tend to work on the same lines foreign policy wise as ourselves, so joint action strengthens rather than reduces our preferences
3. not many european nations appear to take defence seriously, as evidenced by their (lack of) commitment to the 2.0% of GDP rule

if NATO does fold then I want bilateral Defence treaty being hammered out with the US on Day 2.

And it had better cover the Falklands this time!.

[gaelic cowboy]

What does America get out of an alliance with Britain in this hypothetical post NATO world?

Well to paraphrase Bremner Bird and Fortune "Its so that not all the flags on the coffins will be American"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nohGiQmOxlc

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But in this hypothetical post NATO world, an alliance with Britain would only entangle us in a part of the world that we otherwise might not have any losses in. No stake in Europe, no American casualties in Europe. Does the UK provide any economic benefits for us? That would be more reasonable.

Very funny video. I wish I was more familiar with british television so I had some context, but still funny.

The key context is that when he says "everything I'm saying is factually true" he's breaking the fourth wall - those WERE all issues identified in Oman prior to the Iraq invasion.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Many chuckles.

I have always loved that kind of dry brit humor on things.


Gelcube, the context you are missing is almost impossible to "get" unless you watch BBC for a while. Their interviewers ask questions, sometimes tough questions, but they don't spend their time articulating their own views or pushing for the "correct" answer. The Brits actually still have some sense of impartiality in their reportage -- though Murdoch is working to bring them in line with us. Perhaps we here in the USA can pick up the page 3 tradition as well -- solely as a gesture of support for the special relationship of course.

[Flavius Aetius]

Alliances especially of a historical nature do not always have to have clearly defined benefits for either party as the assured mutual defense of each party is always of some strategic value. People within a nation state do not like to be isolated from the rest of the world, even when an isolationist policy is espoused people do not like being ALONE, they still want to feel like they have friends (also there are reasons most isolationist policies will never gain traction within modern America, they no longer fit the psyche of America. They like to consider that there are other nations which also like them and hold similar views and interests to them. The psychological benefit of the special relationship is not to be trifled with, for either the Brits or the American side. However, the US and UK special relationship holds many tangible benefits for both parties.

Britain and the US share close research bonds, close economic ties, and cultural and linguistic ties which both parties should seek to protect. Additionally both are major players on the world stage. finally a presence in Europe will be necessary until the day the 'western world' is upstaged. I fail to see why it is difficult to recognize the value of friendship and closer bonds with not only the isles but also Australia and Canada among others.

If you are someone who is a proponent of isolationist policy you have other issues than worrying about the special relationship because the principle is flawed in the 21st century.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not an isolationist, I just don't think its right that we spend absurd amounts of tax payer dollars to protect countries with a higher standard of living because they don't have to pay their fair share of the defense bill.

Is this actually true, or is it one of those things that people say a lot?

Britain and France have Nukes, Germany seems to be at the cutting edge of many land based techs, Italy has a respectable navy. Oh and by the way, America gets to park men, material, and nukes in a forward staging area, 4000 miles from our own soil.

I fail to see where the free riding comes in

[Strike For The South]

Its a hard thing to prove either way. Our contribution goes deeper than raw numbers. The long term effects of our protection are the very reason these oh so enlightened nations are the way they are.... and whether or not we would spend those hundreds of billions of dollars on raising the standard of living if European defense had never been primarily our responsibility for the last half century is quite arguable.

So its really just a rhetorical point. One I'd consider valid in principle.
:shrug:

One could argue America was able to focus on different things while parking our nukes on far away foreign soil. One could also say the command structure of NATO is set up to favor the US.

I mean I see you disparaging these countries but I don't really see much proof.

Quite frankly I don't really put much stock in what you consider "valid", unless you can back it up

[Strike For The South]

What is there to back up? If European defense wasn't our responsibility, where we park our nukes wouldn't matter at all. What exactly do you want proof of? We don't have any threatening neighbors, and our entire commitment from 1945-on has been incredibly generous. I'm not making radical assertions here. I'm sorry you don't like my tone, but what I'm saying is as common sense as "The Earth is round"or "You should vaccinate your kids."

No it's really not. You seem to think it is, but it's not. 4 of the next 9 top spenders on military are members of NATO. For 60 years Europe (both Eastern and Western) was the first place to go *poof* at the onset of WWIII.

I fail to see what using a continent as one big battle map constitutes as being generous. The Soviets and Americans were "generous" only in the sense that they were trying to tip the chess board. Why has the US been inching closer to the Russian border post 89? TO SPREAD GENEROSITY? HERE YOU GO ESTONIA, HERE ARE SOME F-16S AND A TOP OF THE LINE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM, HAVE FUN WITH YOUR GLORIOUS WELFARE STATE.

You are basically spewing neo-con bullshit.

What's next, the French are all cheese eating surrender monkeys?

[Strike For The South]

Europe doesn't spend a lot compared to who?

China? Russia?

LITERALLY THE ONLY 2 COUNTRIES FRANCE, UK, ITALY, AND GERMANY SPEND LESS THAN

Taken as a whole the EU is by far the biggest spender next to America. Also, America counts things like healthcare and housing which these European countries generally have comprehensive social programs for, no doubt thanks to our generosity

[Strike For The South]

That's my whole point. Your thinking is so skewed because of the massive budget three countries pour into their armed forces

Doesn't change the fact about the EU nor the facts about the individual European countries. Unless you are going to seriously contend that America stations men and money on those frontlines for the sole....hell I give you primary.....the primary reason of protecting those helpless Europeans

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Many chuckles.

I have always loved that kind of dry brit humor on things.


Gelcube, the context you are missing is almost impossible to "get" unless you watch BBC for a while. Their interviewers ask questions, sometimes tough questions, but they don't spend their time articulating their own views or pushing for the "correct" answer. The Brits actually still have some sense of impartiality in their reportage -- though Murdoch is working to bring them in line with us. Perhaps we here in the USA can pick up the page 3 tradition as well -- solely as a gesture of support for the special relationship of course.

We have laws about it - which is why I mocked Sarmation a couple of pages ago for saying all interviews are scripted.


I'm not an isolationist, I just don't think its right that we spend absurd amounts of tax payer dollars to protect countries with a higher standard of living because they don't have to pay their fair share of the defense bill.

You're an isolationist.

We spend about as much, or less, on social care as the US - the difference is that instead of taxing your citizens you just make them pay for it.

I don't have health insurance.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it a coincidence that your countrymen were only truly free to enjoy the fruits of your society once you stopped Empire Building?

Well, after you crippled our trade Empire the government had thousands of out-work former soldiers who could not be "privately" supported by Regimental Foundations - after WWI a deliberate effort was made to force an impoverished aristocracy to front the bill for something they had previously done voluntarily.

After WWII - we needed to care for the broken the bleeding and the orphaned, so we created the modern Welfare State. In the US, you created the VA.


And regardless of all else, the money could simply be better spent. I'm all for economic ties with Europe, and I'm not all that offended by defensive treaties, but we don't need troops in Europe. We don't need a global force. It is nothing but a bad temptation, as the last decade can attest to. Let the implied threat of America on a total war footing and silos full of nukes be enough to deter invasions of our country-- I'm quite sure its enough.

America has a lot of fairly useless toys, the F-35 is monstrously over budget and may not even be that good when it enters service - the F-22 program is likewise and now effectively shutdown after a few hundred planes were built... Both projects required a level of British know-how just to get where they are.

Your strategic bomber force is also of limited value strategically - it's mostly used tactically to support ground troops. You also spend a lot on R&D - which you then export.

NATO provides the US access to things it would not otherwise have - including special forces and aircraft that are superior to what you currently have in service. Stationing troops oversees no only gives you greater force protection, and a bolt-hole in the event the US itself is invaded, it also allows you to maintain a larger military without the need for the infrastructure to support those bases.

[Greyblades]

Well there you have it then. Our global network of bases and our military industrial complex's love of world-shatteringly expensive programs are what we get out of NATO. I said it like its a bad thing, you said it like its a good thing.

...I think the originator of your love for stupidly expensive millitary programs is less NATO membership and more your politicians owning the companies recieving the stupidly expensive millitary contracts. Without NATO they'd just make up different excuses.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well there you have it then. Our global network of bases and our military industrial complex's love of world-shatteringly expensive programs are what we get out of NATO. I said it like its a bad thing, you said it like its a good thing.

What's worse than having an Empire?

Losing it.

In Other Words - stop complaining.

[Greyblades]

Oh totally. And NATO ( or rather the Global Force, including our NATO commitments) are like enabling friends to a drunk.
Without Nato they'd just make up different excuses and they dont seem to be lacking in those. *cough*iraq*cough*

Your government will do it either way, 'rather we enable you to pay for our collective defense than not enable you and watch you fund another stupid invasion all by your lonesome.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah, well my tank is better than your tank.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, well my tank is better than your tank.

Actually, my tank is better - or at least I'm more likely to live through being shot by you than vice versa.

[Kadagar_AV]

Right.. because being ranked 4th or 5th matters a whole lot when the comparisons look like this:

12759

Speaking of Neocons, even our misguided crusade to lower the global price of oil benefits Europe more than us (or would have, rather) :shrug:

Yes GC, it matters a whole lot.

First of all, because of what our most recent recruit here, Flavius Aetius said. No country feels good when left on its own. You NEED friends.

Secondly, look at the chart you posted. Sure Italy alone can't do much. Sure Germany alone can't do much. But when you start to add up all of these countries, you will see that they out-budget places like China and Russia.

You don't need our help in newbie bashing, you need our help when you meet an actual opponent.

Subtract the COST of taking USAnians to fight Russia in Russia, and now again compare it it with the staple in regards to having an already established defensive line, where your allies will do most of the bleeding, paying for themselves.

If you think the US has invested in Europe because you are the cowboys in white hats, you are mislead.

My last point would probably be that that chart shows a wartime nation (USA) compared to... Well... The rest. Don't mistake Europe's half-arsed support in Iraq or Afghanistan to what Europe's support would be if it actually came to a WWIII.

oh, and as a PS: That we get better oil deals is because we have better diplomats. US also gains from this in the long run. USA is the bully in the schoolyard, Europe is USA's friend who come in afterwards, pat the victim on the back, and go "Don't worry, you don't have to give him your lunch money. Just give me half and I will make sure he doesn't harass you."

Did I just compare USAnian international politics to a school yard bully? Hmm, I think I just did :2thumbsup:

[Kadagar_AV]

What a twisted view, that somehow we decided the front line would be in western Europe. Should we have not launched D Day and let the USSR "liberate" France? Should we have promoted Operation Unthinkable?

USA ALWAYS wants its frontline abroads. Young as a nation as you are, I think the only REAL experience of war on home turf was USA against USA, no?

That is of course irregardless of the pioneers smacking away the Indians like flies.

Heck, two planes crash into buildings and it's an absolute UPROAR about it. How DARE they attack us at home just because we attack them at home!!?? Other countries have enough historical memories to know that that really, really, isn't the worst that could have happened.

Yes, I believe US strategic command decided the front line towards Soviet/USSR/Russia would be much preferable in Northern Europe. You disagree?

Really? You think NATO was founded because of USAnian goodwill?

I'm not saying Soviet was any better, I am saying that deciding between two evil empires... I for one would vote to either bugger out and fight or go with the lesser devil. Still the devil, but the lesser one.

We went with option 2.

That's why we just have every single citizen monitored by the USA. See, it could have been worse had we gone with Soviet!! They might have punched us in the balls as they did it.

[drone]

...I think the originator of your love for stupidly expensive millitary programs is less NATO membership and more your politicians owning the companies recieving the stupidly expensive millitary contracts. Without NATO they'd just make up different excuses.

I think you have that backwards.

[Kadagar_AV]

No, I'm saying we put troops in europe to defend a frontline that was already there. You're trying to paint it as a "USAnian" conspiracy. Its mind boggling. All we did was be the best damned allies any European nation has ever had. I think its time we re-negotiated the terms.

Especially if you're representative in any way of the kinds of people we have been helping. :shrug:

1. When the shit hits the fan... Let's be honest about it, you are more likely the culprit compared to Europe - looking at history from WW2 and on.

2. I don't have any conspiracy thinking what so ever. Everything I wrote is pretty much commonly accepted truths. What part did you object to?

3. USA the best damn ally huh? So, you have supported us, and given us more moral legibility when starting wars... More times than the opposite? From my point of view, in both world wars you came in at the very end, when the outcome was already set. Since then you have started wars every decade or so, whereas we haven't. Remind me again, who is the best ally?

[Greyblades]

I think you have that backwards.

Actually I think it goes both ways. Either a politician gets bribed, with campaign contributions or a cushy retirement job, or the politician props up a company they own a large share of with the intent to sell at the peak. Either way the results are generally the same.

[Kadagar_AV]

What I object to is you oversimplifying the motives of a nation to fit your unfortunate world view.

Naaaaah. I tackle the question at historical face value, you however seem burdened by US propaganda.


The entire European commitment stemmed from an American sense of charity and duty.

Really? You have access to pretty much all of the internet, and this is what you come up with? We in Europe would have applauded you if you fought Germany in... say... 39? 40? 41? I don't bother to count.

Heck, even the Germans nowadays would applaud your effort had you done that. As it is, you only stepped in when you got scared that Europe would turn communistic. Remember how we opened this particular debate about US / Soviet front lines?



Everything since, even the really bad shit, has been a result of our compounded sense of national responsibility for the rest of the world.

Sorry for the slow answer, had a bathroom break.

Should we be thankful that a religiously Taliban-nation have saved the intellectual western world from being spied upon or militarily occupied by Big Brother? Uuuuuuuh...


I think the best way to avoid it in the future would be to ask Europe to take care of itself and to dump this clearly misguided sense of global responsibility.

Nah, that would be an extremely silly thing to do.

And that was my point all along, we need you as much as you need us. You seriously think USAnian foreign politics would work in the world at large, if you were alone?

Really?

REALLY? :stare:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, I'm saying we put troops in europe to defend a frontline that was already there. You're trying to paint it as a "USAnian" conspiracy. Its mind boggling. All we did was be the best damned allies any European nation has ever had. I think its time we re-negotiated the terms.

Especially if you're representative in any way of the kinds of people we have been helping. :shrug:

Nah, not at all.

The Frontline should have been where NATO is now - the US had the men and material to push back against Stalin after WWII, it elected not to bother. Subsequent American policies stem from nothing more altruistic than guilt.

You know who FDR was worried about after WWII?

Churchill and the UK - there's documented evidence of that, though he apparently realised Stalin was the real threat before he died.

[Kadagar_AV]

Lolol so we're evil until we decide you do the work yourselves?! Absurd.

In '39-'41 FDR and a huge segment of the country were doing everything possible to help our European brothers, in spite of the isolationist policies we had.

Rubbish argument... Seriously.

As Sgt. in the Swedish Arctic Rangers, I as well as us know we will fight alongside you if hell breaks loose. Heck, our Ericsson communication devices are all in standard for a plug to insert to US command.

I haven't said you were evil, I said you have looked after yourself.

Don't get me wrong, you have done a lot of things that are plainly evil. But you are still the lesser devil.

You wont get any APPLAUSE for it, just a slight nod and a wink... and NATO will stand for another 5-10 years.

[Kadagar_AV]

So we should have fought the red army for you in '45? I think my work is done here.

Nooo, we are much better of having everyday citizens being spied upon by you. We love how you control the worlds monetary system, and keep it from crashing.

Do you REALLY expect an applause?

[Flavius Aetius]

Nooo, we are much better of having everyday citizens being spied upon by you. We love how you control the worlds monetary system, and keep it from crashing.

Do you REALLY expect an applause?

Well that's an infantile understanding of international banking and economics as a whole.

[Kadagar_AV]

You can't have it both ways. Are we the evil USAnian empire who secretly plots to destroy your privacy and usurp your independence, or are we the keystone of your defense?

It must be hard to have pride in yourselves in this situation, so its not like I don't sympathize with your constant need to play down how one-sided our support actually is.

As I previously noted, you are the school yard bully of international politics, we are his friend.

Can't we have it a little bit in both ways, then? Like, taking advantage of all the idiocy and weakness that is going around?

[Kadagar_AV]

Well that's an infantile understanding of international banking and economics as a whole.

No.

Quite simply no.

We have had a clash of monetary suggestions for millenniums.

You, on the other hand, seem to accept the view of us being in the "historical end of monetary systems". I Quite frankly don't support that view.

I am quite certain that there must be a way to make every single person be able to have a job, have enough to eat, and have dreams.

You oppose this?

[Kadagar_AV]

If we're a bully, why is leaving a bad idea? Unless you simply don't want to deal with the security vacuum..

If left on his own, the school yard bully would make life to hard on the other kids, and they would eventually gang up.

Supported, there is no problem.

What are you arguing against here? I have noted Europe is the Robin to the US Batman.

You are of course right that very many non-western countries would go bananas without the umbrella of civilization that is the western world. MY point however is - do you really want to drop Europe?

[Kadagar_AV]

I think we have a a nation of 300 million people in need of our full attention, social issues that require deep commitment, economic issues that involve the need for unpairing economic growth from military expansion. I think the global force, not just Europe but the entire military all over the world, needs scaling back before we hollow ourselves out completely for the sake of something as subjective and superfluous as playing world police. I hope we're always friendly with Europe, but for crissakes you guys are ahead of us on a lot of issues. You don't need us anymore, you want us, and we have had a lot of trouble saying no. We should be pushing hard for a Europe that treats Russia like the middling threat it is, without crying for support.

So... That is kind of what I said, no?

I think the US biggest dilemma is functional schools and healthcare. Make sure everyone can to to school for 12-14 years at the very least. Make sure they can have a hand operation without giving up a kidney.

THIS is what the western world should be about. No?

On the other hand, we could just arm up farmers and young sons and send them off to fight.

Because that is also obviously a way to make humanity reach forwards.

[Flavius Aetius]

No.

Quite simply no.

We have had a clash of monetary suggestions for millenniums.

You, on the other hand, seem to accept the view of us being in the "historical end of monetary systems". I Quite frankly don't support that view.

I am quite certain that there must be a way to make every single person be able to have a job, have enough to eat, and have dreams.

You oppose this?

What are you even ranting about. You said that the US controls the monetary systems of the international community. I responded, correctly, that what you posited is an infantile, i.e. incorrect and uninformed, understanding of how international banking works and that such a belief denotes a weak understanding of general economics.


I am quite certain that there must be a way to make every single person be able to have a job, have enough to eat, and have dreams.

You oppose this?

No one opposes this concept you loon. But no it is not possible for everyone to have maximum utility. In fact your three pillars of a "good economic system" do not even have the same utility for other people as they do for you. And just so you know, no economy with even an inkling of a free market and that includes Scandinavia EVER plans on having unemployment reach 0%. I hate to break it to you but it is not good for an economy to have full employment, in fact it would denote catastrophic occurrences going on within the economy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I think the originator of your love for stupidly expensive millitary programs is less NATO membership and more your politicians owning the companies recieving the stupidly expensive millitary contracts...

I think you have the ownership statement reversed.

[Kadagar_AV]

What are you even ranting about. You said that the US controls the monetary systems of the international community. I responded, correctly, that what you posited is an infantile, i.e. incorrect and uninformed, understanding of how international banking works and that such a belief denotes a weak understanding of general economics.



No one opposes this concept you loon. But no it is not possible for everyone to have maximum utility. In fact your three pillars of a "good economic system" do not even have the same utility for other people as they do for you. And just so you know, no economy with even an inkling of a free market and that includes Scandinavia EVER plans on having unemployment reach 0%. I hate to break it to you but it is not good for an economy to have full employment, in fact it would denote catastrophic occurrences going on within the economy.

I am the loon?

If we don't strive for a society where everyone have maximum utility, not to mention a job - what is the point?

Remind me again, what are we striving for?

I totally agree that the capitalistic system we currently historically work under refuse that line of thought. All I stress is that, well, that isn't the only line of thought.

If we can put a man on the moon, I am sure we can also feed our population.

[Flavius Aetius]

What is utility Kadagar?


have maximum utility, not to mention a job

Because when you say this it makes me question if you and I are both talking about the same thing here.

[Kadagar_AV]

What is utility Kadagar?



Because when you say this it makes me question if you and I are both talking about the same thing here.

Do you ask about utility or maximum utility?

I responded to your use of "maximum utility". And yes, of course I think every human being have the same right to reach their absolute maximum utility to society.

I of course agree that not all are born equal. My point is that we should build a society where we can adhere to that fact... Without sending people to gas chambers OR set quotas to let unqualified people in.

[drone]

Heck, even the Germans nowadays would applaud your effort had you done that. As it is, you only stepped in when you got scared that Europe would turn communistic. Remember how we opened this particular debate about US / Soviet front lines?

:inquisitive:
We stepped in when Germany declared war on us, after Pearl Harbor. If you are going to highlight our foot-dragging, at least get it right.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:inquisitive:
We stepped in when Germany declared war on us, after Pearl Harbor. If you are going to highlight our foot-dragging, at least get it right.

Though we had been warring against Germany on an unofficial basis for about 6 or so months prior to Pearl. Still, Roosevelt probably wouldn't have got a DoW through Congress absent Germany's DoW.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If we can put a man on the moon, I am sure we can also feed our population.

We already can and do. Food production exceeds that needed to feed the world. Logistics and Politics combine to keep it from some mouths. Nobody is starving in Syria because the world won't feed them, same with Sudan, etc.

[HopAlongBunny]

It seems NATO is an on-going referendum.
If Europe wanted to break ties with the US they would have already replaced it.
If the US wanted to save the coin and stay at home, they would have already done it.

As it is, both sides have voted to continue the relationship.