Warfare Russia/Ukraine War
- Thread starter morris
- Start date
- Featured
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2016
- Messages
- 1,958
- Points
- 338
When you plant mines, it's helpful to make a note where they are. Orc S-350 runs over Orc mine... and that's gonna void the warranty!
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2019
- Messages
- 6,118
- Points
- 288
Or maybe a lot of Americans are just tired of paying for the European defense plan aka "Operation American Meat Shield" in money and blood?
Europe wants to poke the bear and the dragon, ride the moral high horse across the globe and not pay to back any of it up. Even now the increases with a few exceptions are still rather pitiful. It's not just about 2%, it's about compensating for decades of non-investment.
And when something bad happens they collectively cower behind the US. Oh but when they do send their token military force they specifically do not want to have an American command it! No, the Americans are only good enough to pay and bleed, don't want to be associating yourself with them ...
That leads to the situation where a candidate that tells you to either pay up or go f*ck yourselves has a chance to be elected not once, but twice.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 3,914
- Points
- 234
I seem to remember the only nation to ever invoke Article V was the US of A, and that Europe duly responded and paid a significant blood toll in Afghanistan for her loyality. Anyhoo, what you're saying about Europe slacking in terms of defence spending isn't wrong, but it doesn't change the fact NATO has always primarily served American interests. And it did that very well – militarily, politically, economically. Militarily, as it ensured any war between America and the USSR would be waged far from the American homeland. Politically, as it gave America secure access to the Russian hemisphere. Economically, as it gave American companies what was then their most lucrative export market.
Even today, America benefits greatly from NATO, otherwise the Russians wouldn't do their utmost to get America's foot out of Europe's door. As a matter of fact, NATO's usefulness to America is the very reason for this current rift between both halves of the alliance. Most Europeans believe Trump opened that rift, but it actually goes way back to 2003. Back then, Europe didn't feel threatened by Iraq, so many governments refused to join the "coalition of the willing" (and many of those who did acted against the explicit wish of their electorate). The thing is, most Europeans think of NATO as a purely defensive alliance – that it is reactive, not proactive. This attitude was also demonstrated, by the way, when Turkey invaded Syria a while ago and Ankara was told in no uncertain terms that they were on their own should the Syrians strike back.
But America sees NATO as a tool for proactively furthering US interests (and that's how it is being perceived by Russia, China and others as well). America thinks Europe should make America's enemies her own. You see, you're borrowing here the old Trump narrative that Europeans would expect Americans to pay in blood and money for their safety; but for that to be true Europeans would've had to perceive a threat to their safety first. The fact is, they didn't expect to be protected, they rather thought no protection was needed. That's just as short-sighted, but still a difference. We didn't cut back our defence spending expecting America to pay the bill*; we did it believing there was no military threat.
I remember watching footage from a Trump press conference in 2019 when he ranted about how America is protecting Europe from Iran. Only then did I realise how dramatically both sides talk past one another. It's like, Iran? When did Iran ever threaten Europe? Europeans care not one jot about Iran. Why would Trump believe that to be a compelling argument? The point being, the disagreement about NATO's purpose is what desparately needs solving here. But as long as both sides refuse to address the issue, I think they're both equally to blame.
*) By the way, I have yet to see convincing evidence that Europe's shrinking defence budgets post-1990 actually hurt the American tax payer. America has drastically decreased its military presence in Europe since then, and going through the GAO's list of expenditures, it's really difficult to establish thematic links between American expenses and European cuts. Their ballooning defence budget is first and foremost owed to the War on Terror and the expressed goal to project power towards China.
Even today, America benefits greatly from NATO, otherwise the Russians wouldn't do their utmost to get America's foot out of Europe's door. As a matter of fact, NATO's usefulness to America is the very reason for this current rift between both halves of the alliance. Most Europeans believe Trump opened that rift, but it actually goes way back to 2003. Back then, Europe didn't feel threatened by Iraq, so many governments refused to join the "coalition of the willing" (and many of those who did acted against the explicit wish of their electorate). The thing is, most Europeans think of NATO as a purely defensive alliance – that it is reactive, not proactive. This attitude was also demonstrated, by the way, when Turkey invaded Syria a while ago and Ankara was told in no uncertain terms that they were on their own should the Syrians strike back.
But America sees NATO as a tool for proactively furthering US interests (and that's how it is being perceived by Russia, China and others as well). America thinks Europe should make America's enemies her own. You see, you're borrowing here the old Trump narrative that Europeans would expect Americans to pay in blood and money for their safety; but for that to be true Europeans would've had to perceive a threat to their safety first. The fact is, they didn't expect to be protected, they rather thought no protection was needed. That's just as short-sighted, but still a difference. We didn't cut back our defence spending expecting America to pay the bill*; we did it believing there was no military threat.
I remember watching footage from a Trump press conference in 2019 when he ranted about how America is protecting Europe from Iran. Only then did I realise how dramatically both sides talk past one another. It's like, Iran? When did Iran ever threaten Europe? Europeans care not one jot about Iran. Why would Trump believe that to be a compelling argument? The point being, the disagreement about NATO's purpose is what desparately needs solving here. But as long as both sides refuse to address the issue, I think they're both equally to blame.
*) By the way, I have yet to see convincing evidence that Europe's shrinking defence budgets post-1990 actually hurt the American tax payer. America has drastically decreased its military presence in Europe since then, and going through the GAO's list of expenditures, it's really difficult to establish thematic links between American expenses and European cuts. Their ballooning defence budget is first and foremost owed to the War on Terror and the expressed goal to project power towards China.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 8,901
- Points
- 328
Interesting that the Biden-Harris campaign feels this clip will somehow help them.
Americans are currently dealing with 10K new illegal aliens per day, due to a dilberately open border, their kids can't go to school because all the fancy hotels are full of illegals and the school is being converted into a dormitory. Oh by the way, they are being killed, robbed and raped daily - not to mention the fentanyl allowed to cross the open border killing over 100,000 Americans per year.
Gas, food and rent have at least doubled in the past 3 years. Credit card rates are 30%. The taxpayer is being stuck with a 2 Trillion dollar annual deficit, which will rob future generations of any ability for a successful life.
Not to mention all this woke BS where they try to convince your 7 year old boy that he should be a girl. "Shhhhh, don't tell your parent we're taking you for treatment".
All of this courtesy of the Biden- Harris folks.
They are so untethered from reality that they feel this 20 second sound bite in a 3 hour speech will help them.
Do they really think the American voter gives a $h!t about sacrificing their kids to defend Europe, when actual Europeans show no interest in defending themselves?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2019
- Messages
- 2,633
- Points
- 278
Just to clarify, you saying that :
- Illegal immigration
- Trillion dollare deficit
- woke movement
- crime and drug abuse
All was because of Biden? Well S**t, I must have grown up in the wrong America. America of future past.
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 8,901
- Points
- 328
I'm not sure where you grew up, but from what you tell us, that place pretty much sucked.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2019
- Messages
- 3,914
- Points
- 234
It's like talking to a brick wall …
If you genuinely can't see it's a bit silly to encourage your primary opponent to attack your own allies – allies who're at odds with your opponent to no small part because of their siding with you –, then what will you see?
Putin and Xi are probably delighted to hear Trump's latest brain fart.
Why should Beijing believe that the US would aid Taiwan; why should Pyongyang believe the US would South Korea; if Uncle Sam can't be arsed to care about his oldest military alliance, and one which he created himself?
Weren't you just a few weeks ago going on about how Joe Biden was a terrible president for allegedly encouraging the attack on Israel by being soft on Iran? You can't possibly agree with the one and condemn the other. That's just illogical.
And if you don't see that Uncle Sam doesn't enter into military alliances out of the goodness of his own heart but for economic benefits … Where are your computer chips coming from if not from Taiwan?
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 2,645
- Points
- 288
Interesting X account
Great followers
Boris Johnson seens to be getting a lot of flack from what Putin said in the interview.
I am ready to believe the Russians proposed an agreement to the Ukrainian leadership.
I am even more inclined to believe the Russians would have disrespected it at the first opportunity.
Great followers
Boris Johnson seens to be getting a lot of flack from what Putin said in the interview.
I am ready to believe the Russians proposed an agreement to the Ukrainian leadership.
I am even more inclined to believe the Russians would have disrespected it at the first opportunity.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 2,645
- Points
- 288
In all fairness trump does say this to those not paying up NATO. And I believe we should have in Washington someone as distrustful as Trump to encourage us to stand up for ourselves.Or maybe a lot of Americans are just tired of paying for the European defense plan aka "Operation American Meat Shield" in money and blood?
Europe wants to poke the bear and the dragon, ride the moral high horse across the globe and not pay to back any of it up. Even now the increases with a few exceptions are still rather pitiful. It's not just about 2%, it's about compensating for decades of non-investment.
And when something bad happens they collectively cower behind the US. Oh but when they do send their token military force they specifically do not want to have an American command it! No, the Americans are only good enough to pay and bleed, don't want to be associating yourself with them ...
That leads to the situation where a candidate that tells you to either pay up or go f*ck yourselves has a chance to be elected not once, but twice.
However this ranting in the current environment and hints that he does not plan to support Korea, Taiwan and Israel in addition to have trained dogs to say the worst things about Ukraine does reveal character.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2019
- Messages
- 7,973
- Points
- 284
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2022
- Messages
- 432
- Points
- 228
A strong deterrent is the best way to not have to fight. Now what kind of a message does this send to Russia, China & co. about the level of the deterrent on a general level? Is the US ready to turn on its back and abandon its status as a global hyper power?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2018
- Messages
- 8,901
- Points
- 328
I generally agree. And Trump's wording wasn't the most eloquent on that segment. But when he speaks for hours, his statements can become more conversational rather than policy statements. My comment was directed at the Biden campaign, which tweeted that sound bite as an indictment, even after all they've done to destroy this nation, in the hopes that voters would care.
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 2,645
- Points
- 288
A terrible message I agree. I don't know what's going on with America. Between Trumpistas and Wokists there must be some greatness left somewhere
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 902
- Points
- 149
I think THAT is the crucial question!
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
- Messages
- 902
- Points
- 149
I think there are enough countries / peoples in the world that have been left hanging by America. They have already made up their minds. But if Trump is serious with these statements against Europe and NATO, then the USA will be even worse off in the foreseeable future, namely when people stop buying American products because they can't rely on spare parts being delivered. Not to mention the military consequences of such a decision... America has always done what it thinks is good for America. If it is then also good for another part of the world, that is a favourable coincidence, but not intentional.
On the other Hand, maybe that kicks some asses in Europe, to build its own defence alliance that does not rely on the help of the USA.
If only we Europeans didn't always think in such small-state terms...
Similar threads
