Printable View
[QUOTE=Pannonian;2053779659
Also, what do you think of our pro-Brexit media accusing judges, MPs and the PM of treason for not being as pro-hard Brexit as they'd like? All of that after one of our MPs was murdered for campaigning for Remain.[/QUOTE]
Design by media, it happens. They are ding the exact same tuingereedschap tot Thierry Baudet (rising star) as they die wih Fortuyn. What can I say it is wrong
Well, WW1 has shown that uparming can make a World War more likely. I'll also give you that WW2 has shown that total appeasement can also make a World War more likely. Noone here is arguing for total disarmament though.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Funnily enough, now that you say it, I don't recall where, but I remember hearing lately that this was caused by introducing the American model of not stockpiling spareparts to save storage costs. Kind of a just-in-time delivery except that the reality turned out to be more of a way-too-late delivery of spare parts. :sweatdrop:Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Maybe the US industry is much more used to constantly supplying new things or has more competition left that forces them to step up their game a bit.I think EADS is basically almost a monopoly in many European countries now since the smaller manufacturers all consolidated into that one to stay able to compete. Otherwise we'd be comparing F-35s to SU-35s now I guess, decisding whose pawn we'd want to be.
What four percent goal and why should it matter to me what an elected official of a foreign country wants? I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********. NATO agreed on two percent and that's the best my elected leaders should give. ~;pQuote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
By the way: the American NATO general, while saying we should become better, still sees Germany as the second most important contributor to NATO and says there's reason to appreciate German efforts now already: http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/n...land-1.4052868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curtis Scaparrotti
Did said elected official of foreign country tell you who your leader of the state should be?Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Not yet/that I know of. Do you have a link about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Het basicly said that he doesn't care, that's what I got from itQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Trump's usual subtle style in working with others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
You do realize that both of our countries have done that sort of thing for a century regarding other nations around the world (though generally sub rosa).Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Trump is simply tacky enough to do it to you, and to do so to your face. Proving he is an asshat, and that he believes in achieving the interests of the USA (as he sees them, and quite possibly short-sightedly). If that bugs you, he'll twitter something along the lines of GFY. The man oozes charm from every pore. ~:rolleyes:
It's effective though. What I like about Trump is that's he simply doesn't give a hoot, I kinda enjoy the astonished faces
That must be why he keeps whining about his critics on Twitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That's smart, to succeed he must be the outsider. Works great. IdontevenwanttocometoyourbirtdayismQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Not sure if he's made the explicit threat before, but apparently he threatened to pull out of NATO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Good thing it's a ratified treaty.Quote:
The most stunning comment came from a source reported by Reuters: “He said they must or the United States would go it alone.”
This was greeted with shocked silence. It had seemed unthinkable: a US president threatening to that the US has regarded as a cornerstone of its military strategy for 69 years.
No one appears to be disputing the words. What is being disputed is the interpretation. Reuters reported Trump as having threatened to quit Nato but then rescinded this. Macron insisted this had not been Trump’s meaning.
But just as alarming was the apparent ultimatum. European leaders who have so far failed to reach Nato’s 2% are talking about achieving this years from now, not by January.
How bad a negotiator do you have to be to constantly make threats that everyone knows you can't fulfill, and without parley enact those threats that are simply easy to unilaterally implement?
Why do you think so?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
That must be why he tells his followers that he and they are the actual elites who represent some majority, that his inauguration crowd was huge and that he actually did win the popular vote if it weren't for "fake votes" or whatever he calls them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I can see how he wants to be an outsider when he claims he is friends with all the best people, stuffs lots of lobbyists in his cabinet, claims he is more popular than Obama and Abraham Lincoln................
He bruited about over leaving NATO in his first 6 months or so as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
He loves taking a choreographed meeting and tossing some kind of turd into the punchbowl. I believe he feels that he is advantaged whenever the others are uncomfortable or wrong footed. Neanderthal negotiation.
Should be easy to handle no? Except it isn't, not in the way things used to work and they have no answer to it. They respond with contempt and dedain, not understanding they lost again when doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The Trump camp has plenty of contempt and disdain, has to be losing as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
How would you answer him? With compassion and love like a real Gutmensch?
UnpredictablyQuote:
Originally Posted by Husar
agreed, because trump isn't playing their game. he delights in being controversially wrong, because the outrage that ensues provides 100% wall to wall coverage of the issues he wants discussed, and his target audience doesn't give monkeys about the details.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
it is not a shiny new technique, either. he did the same to beat hillary - hillary: "we wanna talk about hope an schooling" donald: "wanna talk about the 50,000 illegals climbing the fence each month" media: "LIES - it's only 10,000 a month!" donald: *smiles* "now we're talking"
WW1 shows the dangers of entangling alliances and 'red lines,' all the major powers in Europe had been well armed continuously since the end of the Napoleonic wars brought in relative peace to Europe until the rise of nationalist movements and the post 1848 effects in regards to socialist/liberalism. The Austrians assumed the Russians would stay out of their fight with Serbia, the Germans thought the British would ignore their attack on Belgium, and so on for several years.Quote:
Well, WW1 has shown that uparming can make a World War more likely. I'll also give you that WW2 has shown that total appeasement can also make a World War more likely. Noone here is arguing for total disarmament though.
South Korea and North Korea have been geared for war since the Korean war and that mutual deterrent has aside from 'border skirmishes' kept the peace.
Being well armed deters aggression, do you think the Ukraine would have been messed with by Russia over Crimea if they hadn't voluntarily surrendered their nuclear arsenal? The only alternate to being well armed is being allied to or guaranteed by a great power ie: Taiwan, the Baltic States, North Vietnam (its alliance with the PRC deterring a US invasion to topple it during Vietnam and instead fighting mostly in South Vietnam).
It's really an issue of economies of scale. The US has so much equipment and personnel that the reduced rate of readiness is not so easily felt. Our air force has over 5000 planes of many types, Germany has a bit less than 500. If we have an aircraft carrier that needs to be dry docked there are many more available to fill its role. If the F-16 is grounded for safety issues we have other aircraft in large quantities that can be used in their place to continue the mission. Ex: in my national guard unit this year we had most of our trucks deadlined (not allowed for operational use) due a recall of the tires they are using a week before our annual training exercise. We were able to source enough replacement vehicles from within the State of Hawaii to borrow for our training exercise that were able to still get all our training completed while still supporting the lava disaster relief going on in Puna district. If those other trucks hadn't been available we would have been severally hampered in our annual training exercise.Quote:
Maybe the US industry is much more used to constantly supplying new things or has more competition left that forces them to step up their game a bit.I think EADS is basically almost a monopoly in many European countries now since the smaller manufacturers all consolidated into that one to stay able to compete. Otherwise we'd be comparing F-35s to SU-35s now I guess, decisding whose pawn we'd want to be.
Germany has sold off most of its cold war military stock for easily understandable reasons but seeing as the replacement vehicles and equipment are bought in such small quantities there will never be a ready supply of spares. Look at France, each time their aircraft carrier goes in for maintenance and repairs they essentially lose most of their navy's potential to fight a war or project their will short of lots of midair refueling (like the RAF did during the falklands with the remnants of their V-Bombers).
That is very true and frustrating. It is more cost effective but it is at the expense of 'readiness' which in a smaller military like Germany has much larger impacts. My deadlined tires will probably be replaced several months down the line.Quote:
Kind of a just-in-time delivery except that the reality turned out to be more of a way-too-late delivery of spare parts.
I wholeheartedly agree and I appreciate that Merkel is working toward 2% though it is at a very slow rate. I understand though that getting any money toward the military in Germany is much more difficult. Spending more than needed and agreed upon however is not something I advocate. So long as our allies contribute to our common defense I'm happy and I truly appreciate their pitching in, in Afghanistan for almost 17 years now when we invoked article 5 after 9/11.Quote:
What four percent goal and why should it matter to me what an elected official of a foreign country wants? I didn't elect him, so he can respectfully suck my **********. NATO agreed on two percent and that's the best my elected leaders should give.
We are sadly falling for his game every time. His followers will think he's being tough with our allies and getting them to contribute better when he's really causing the viability of NATO as a concept to be doubted by our closest friends.Quote:
agreed, because trump isn't playing their game. he delights in being controversially wrong, because the outrage that ensues provides 100% wall to wall coverage of the issues he wants discussed, and his target audience doesn't give monkeys about the details.
Telling the UK that we might not make a trade deal with them if they make one with the EU is absolutely insane. Just because Trump wants to dismantle the world order the US and UK built after WW2 and the end of the cold war shouldn't mean he's able to try and blackmail our closest ally. I really wish our Congress would have some stones and do the checks and balances on his apparent ability to create chaos with Tweets and speeches.
The viability of NATO as a concept has been in question for a long time by two permanent members in the security council no less. I have cited a case study (by the MIT journal of international security) here before with damning evidence of their conduct in Libya. If it is not to be dismantled, it is in need of major reforms in both policy and procedure on the ground, which it shouldn't be involved in to begin with on most accounts. If Trump's antics are a driving force for either or, than I'm all for it.
Do you have a link?Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
It's not that simple, since you introduce the equation of compelling other powers to up-arm recursively (c.f. arms race). Perhaps it works more the way you imagine when it's a small country deterring a large one, rather than multiple large countries of comparable resources. But that's also an empirical question.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla
Fun fact: One of the major instigators of impeachment proceedings in early-modern Parliament was royal ministers engaging in foreign policy contrary to the position of Parliament. George Mason, one of the firmest proponents of broad impeachment provisions at the Constitutional Convention, responsible for advancing finally the British formula of "high crimes and misdemeanours", even said:Quote:
We are sadly falling for his game every time. His followers will think he's being tough with our allies and getting them to contribute better when he's really causing the viability of NATO as a concept to be doubted by our closest friends.
Telling the UK that we might not make a trade deal with them if they make one with the EU is absolutely insane. Just because Trump wants to dismantle the world order the US and UK built after WW2 and the end of the cold war shouldn't mean he's able to try and blackmail our closest ally. I really wish our Congress would have some stones and do the checks and balances on his apparent ability to create chaos with Tweets and speeches.
Warren Hastings was a Governor-General of India contemporaneously being impeached for improperly advancing British interests in relation to the Indian states. :whip:Quote:
Treason, as defined in the Constitution, will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of treason.
How are you distinguishing between "viability" per se, and the convenience of NATO dissolution towards adversaries of NATO?Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
So... Russia and China... ? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
@Fragony It's behind a paywall online but I have the whole thing if you would like me to email it to you, no problem.
It’s a good question, but it assumes that NATO makes decisions to overcome its opposition when it is equally possible that it is made up of loose cannons with a mutual focus on low risk (relations-wise) endeavors. Qaddafi’s final years were his most benign, and he had made the most concessions to the west he ever had in his life. In other words, he could have been bought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Viability as in not only its stated humanitarian principles, but the legality and legitimacy of its actions. The fact that it dives into these operations with the knowledge that the outcomes will probably be suboptimal. A waste of resources on goals that go beyond the national interest of the participants, to third parties more often than not. Another lesson is the empowerment of non-state actors to be a huge factor in the NATO decision-making process with their ability to encourage these interventions.
All of this is detrimental to NATO operations worldwide. It has shot itself in the foot numerous times through these operations.
Come on, it can't be THAT long. **** maximum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
You're just jealous of how long mine is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilrandir
Just finnished reading it, it does raise an eyebrow so to say
To my knowledge, the only substantial military engagements NATO has been involved in since 2000 have been Afghanistan and Libya. The Iraq mission was training, non-combat, though some members of NATO did separately contribute combat forces. The Kosovo mission is a peacekeeping/training force left over from 1999.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
https://www.nato.int/cps/ie/natohq/topics_52060.htm
So this is a bit too abstract for me.
About Libya: what should America or NATO high command have done? Let's say actively aiding Gaddafi was out of the question for obvious reasons. Let's say the neocolonial option was too expensive and unsavory. No action whatsoever? That might require America to strongarm France and the UK to prevent their uni/bi-lateral action - not an easy choice. And then, what if the rebels win anyway? Or what if the civil war persists, and Libya becomes what we know Syria as now (Islamists diverted to Libya rather than Syria)? But maybe that's unfair to bring into consideration, because it's too dependent on hindsight. Regardless, what's the right move politically - not abstractly! - in 2011? Difficulty: no prescriptions that are only possible in a world where America retrenches its international role post-Cold War.
More importantly, does the absence of NATO framework going forward restrain the bad habits of American or the European powers, or does it unleash them?
I wonder whether the mere existence of the NATO alliance is a greater strategic deterrent to Russia than any potential extent of European rearmament, that dissolving NATO and expecting EU states to build up their own militaries would just be a waste of money in aligning with the current effect.
If you don’t count Somalia and Bosnia in the early 1990s, there’s also the regional spillover from Libya that hit Mali hard.
Not foster the rebellion from the start? Reviewing the first month of the conflict prior to intervention, the government counteroffensive was making significant gains in retaking the country and rebel progress was short-lived. That the rebels win anyway is a non-starter as they only had the means to start a rebellion, not win one. That it would end up like Syria is also a non-starter given that intervention is prolonging conflict.
The right move politically, for one, is to not host and embrace militia leaders, military dissidents, Islamist mercenaries, and welcome the rebel bureaucracy into intergovernmental organizations.
We can find examples for both. NATO enlargement has been used for imperial overstretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs...%20Affairs.pdf
http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs...y%20Review.pdf
I don't think the financial setbacks are something that can inhibit the US from managing a post-NATO order. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_expenditures
Multiple countries with similar resources and alliances complicate the questions, hence Putin's drive (surprisingly through the POTUS) to dismantle the EU and NATO. Russia could through its weight around quite easily in Europe without those two organizations, France and the UK are no longer in position to play great power games independently anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The credibility of NATO's mutual defense has largely centered around the US, if the US with its extreme resources were to leave the alliance NATO would really just be a hollow bureaucratic shell of an organization and as it stands there's no one in Europe to take over that leadership. Since the 1966 Defence White Paper the UK has essentially renounced its Great Power status and any attempts to maintain that sort of influence independent of major allies anymore. Where the US to leave NATO the UK is no longer in a position to drive the alliance leaving it to Germany and France both of which have too many historical problems to be the drivers of Europe's military defense against Russia.
The nice part of NATO though was that the major European powers didn't need to divert massive amounts of money to their militaries because of the shared mutual defense, if that all goes to nothing there is very little indication that they would rearm to credibly defend themselves and would aside from the nuclear powers be open to Russia's use of hard power. If the Baltic States weren't part of NATO what would stop Russian tanks from rolling in and defacto annexing them? Sanctions may hurt Russia but they haven't got the Crimea back to the Ukraine or stopped the separatist movements in the East of Ukraine and who knows if the POTUS concedes those to Putin this week?!
While not a large combat deployment the anti-piracy operations off of Somalia (Operation Ocean Shield) were largely a NATO led effort which involved a significant naval effort that independent nations besides the US could not maintained.Quote:
To my knowledge, the only substantial military engagements NATO has been involved in since 2000 have been Afghanistan and Libya. The Iraq mission was training, non-combat, though some members of NATO did separately contribute combat forces. The Kosovo mission is a peacekeeping/training force left over from 1999. .
The Baltic Air Policing over those states has been a significant NATO effort with regular rotating contingents that while forgotten by most are a very visible show of NATO defense for some of our most vulnerable allies. Again not a combat operation but it uses a significant amount of air-power that most NATO nations could not do independently.
As I've voiced in the Libya thread I'd advocate for the neo-colonial option (all the options minus letting Gaddafi do what he wants are expensive and unsavory). It is expensive but at present the EU has FRONTEX essentially doing coast guard operations for Libya, their air space is really secured by NATO, and if a migrant deal is worked out with immigration centers to be built out of Europe, Libya would be the logical choice seeing as its the current major departure point. Remember that the European powers only got involved in colonizing North Africa because of the constant harassment by the Barbary Pirates following the decline in the ability or desire of the Ottoman Empire to actually govern its North African provinces. The current mess in Libya is untenable and waiting for the largest militia or the rump state of government in existence there to be able to control its own territory would take decades if ever to have a return to stability (think Somalia post US withdrawal in the 90s). It would not have been easy and who knows how bloody of an occupation it'd be but at the least it wouldn't have destabilized its neighbors like Mali. Who knows? In the possibilities of the actions not taken its entirely possible that we'd be handing back power to locally elected Libyans at this point, its also possible that it'd end up being an Iraq scale occupation/debacle.Quote:
About Libya: what should America or NATO high command have done? Let's say actively aiding Gaddafi was out of the question for obvious reasons. Let's say the neocolonial option was too expensive and unsavory. No action whatsoever?
As for no action? That would have been a better option than helping overthrow Gaddafi and then naively hoping that this group of Islamist militias would be the nice ones that would bring Democracy to North Africa. Same for Syria, if we are to hope Assad is overthrow then do it outright, not foster then abandon a democratic rebellion leading to years of civil war that have scarred the region irreparably. Less Syrians would have died at this point if Assad had been allowed to do his brutal repression or of he had been toppled after he cross that red-line. At the very least it wouldn't have allowed for the conditions to let ISIS become an independent though thankfully short lived State.
Now it's time to develop your case: what did this have to do with NATO? The crisis developed over a month, and various countries, in particular UK and France, were calling for regime change within a couple of weeks of the outset. From my perspective the best that could have managed through NATO command would have been to set of stringent operational parameters at the outset to the effect of hitting Gaddafi hard for a few weeks and using the leverage of potential reintensification to force all parties into negotiations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
But I guess too many in our governments saw the crisis from the beginning as a regime-change opportunity, contemplating backward from desired ends than stochastically from available facts. No point in restraint if a small further investment- "smart power" in SecState Clinton's words - secures you more of what you think you want. Is this then a flaw of NATO, when it's a general pattern in Anglo-American foreign policy logic over generations?
I don't think the fact that Russia feels entitled to a regional sphere of influence is a good argument against NATO, and in fact its very levying implies that in the short term taking NATO out of the picture would be destabilizing in favor of Russia. In the same way, various Ukrainian factions desiring a closer relationship with Europe to balance against Russia has not made a case against the EU or other European associations. ('Ukraine can't surrender aspects of sovereignty to EU! It already surrendered them to Russia!' Mafia knows you can't juggle business arrangements.)Quote:
We can find examples for both. NATO enlargement has been used for imperial overstretch.
http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs...%20Affairs.pdf
http://mearsheimer.uchicago.edu/pdfs...y%20Review.pdf
Ultimately NATO expansion is a distraction, because Russia under Putin has long felt it needs a much broader role in Europe and throughout the world; between 1990 and 2008, Russia was rebuilding. NATO is a pretext for an aspect of a long-term development, not an instigator in its own right. And don't leave out domestic developments, the continuing need around Obama's first term for Putin to consolidate power, growing public unrest with the government, examples of governments falling to popular unrest around the (Arab) world...
So it came about that Putin figured he could find more advantage in antagonizing the West than in cooperating with it. The Ukraine crisis is where he threw his chips down and committed to his strategy. He became convinced that the status quo presented a threat to his regime, and so made it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
A "neutral" Ukraine arrangement is no compromise since it requires Russia to give up more than Europe or the US, not least the psychological-historical identity connection. You would need the threat of disincentives for Russia elsewhere to conform to such a deal (generously assuming it's desirable or achievable on its own terms, or held desirable by the crucial country of Ukraine itself). NATO is one such leverage, sanctions are another, and I'm not sure that there's much else, which is to say there aren't enough available to us. There's the American post-war order as a whole, but it's fading fast in part thanks to Trump, and is anyway one of Russia's consistent targets; undermining the Western world order is a core Russian interest, and that's not subject to moderation through concessions. Because Putin's strategy is specifically to undermine our hard and soft powers to disincentivize Russian policies, there are no direct diplomatic means for resolving our conflict with Russia, which is quasi-existential and not based in concrete disagreements. I think the only way to substantially change Russian behavior is to promote a Western economic realignment that is more attractive to other countries than extractive-regime fascism, that leaves fewer entries for Russian manipulation.
Military buildup, by the way, will never bring any of our aspirations to fruition. Putin would love to be able to play along in such an easy, no-stakes (for him) contest, the kind of posturing he thrives on before his base.
(How many more tens of billions $ have NATO countries added to their military budgets since 2014? More than Russia's entire yearly defence budget? Welfare for people, not for military industrial complex pl0x.)
This is a separate topic, but I don't think Assad alone had the means to win outright even absent any foreign aid to rebels. After the northwest near the Turkish border, Aleppo and so on, the entire eastern half of the country was the next major region the Syrian government lost control of, to Kurds and Al Qaeda-linked groups a year or two before IS emerged from the shadows. IS was very carefully organized by former Baathist officers over years, and had the advantage of using western Iraq as a springboard into the anarchy of Eastern Syria. Recall this was all before US or Russian coalition forces became significantly involved in ground or air operations, effectively helping Assad from their entry. It did take mass civil resistance more than a year to morph into a full civil war (in 2012), so maybe Assad got complacent when he could have brought conclusive force to bear against a civilian movement, I don't know. But a few American guns weren't the thing preventing Assad from defeating the rebels by 2014.Quote:
Originally Posted by spmetla