Should we be concerned for our future?
03-06-2022 | 05:04 PM
#791
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2020
Posts: 2,958
Likes: 229
From: Enoch Powell Enthusiast
I find it darkly amusing that the US is both purchasing huge amounts of Russian oil while simultaneously pouring billions of dollars of weapons and aid into Ukraine.
Literally funding both sides of the conflict.
Literally funding both sides of the conflict.
03-06-2022 | 05:06 PM
#792
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 8
You're missing like 10 years of the timeline. Like when in 2008, Putin invaded Georgia unprovoked. Or, in 2014 when he annexed Crimea after sending in unmarked military into your region.
Why do you think they wanted to join NATO in the first place? It couldn't be because of the increasingly hostile posture of Russia. It isn't the right of Russia to determine what alliances their neighbors join.
Why do you think they wanted to join NATO in the first place? It couldn't be because of the increasingly hostile posture of Russia. It isn't the right of Russia to determine what alliances their neighbors join.
03-06-2022 | 05:08 PM
#793
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 140
He was Chancellor until 2005. Merkel held the ground? Really? Who shut down German nuclear power in 2011? Who also championed Energiewende, the 20 year long German green push that has simply proven green energy not ready for prime time?
Russia is enormously corrupt. Putin runs the country like the ultimate mob boss. The CIA had him figured as being personally worth around $40 billion several years ago. What idiots would put their energy security in the hands of a former KGB agent?
Russia is enormously corrupt. Putin runs the country like the ultimate mob boss. The CIA had him figured as being personally worth around $40 billion several years ago. What idiots would put their energy security in the hands of a former KGB agent?
I don't think people realize how much Putin has changed in the last 23 years of his reign. In 1999, he was very well regarded as a modernizer. 2008 was the first sign of trouble, when Medvedev was installed as a puppet President. Since then, he's been amending the Russian constitution to have a never-ending term.
This has been a 20 year slow roll to full on despotism. So to bring up early 2000s Russian favoritism is not the same as backing Putin in 2022.
03-06-2022 | 05:11 PM
#796
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,714
Likes: 274
Try again. The 2% guidance was agreed at the MILDEL in 2006.
03-06-2022 | 05:13 PM
#797
Perennial Reserve
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,261
Likes: 259
You can IMAGINE Trump would have done practically anything, but none of this stuff happened on his watch.
03-06-2022 | 05:20 PM
#798
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 140
From the Brussels Summit 2021.
All this panty-twisting for a self-imposed investment target. It turns out the Russian military was letting their heavy equipment rot on tarmacs, but you're complaining that the $1.2T budget wasn't distributed enough.
There are some on this forum who say NATO isn't ready because of the spending shortfalls, and my response is this.
Compared to what?
35. We reaffirm our unwavering commitment to all aspects of the Defence Investment Pledge agreed at the 2014 Wales Summit. Fair burden sharing underpins the Alliance’s cohesion, solidarity, credibility, and ability to fulfil our fundamental Article 3 and Article 5 commitments. We are, individually and collectively, committed to further improving the balance of sharing the costs and responsibilities of Alliance membership. We have made considerable progress since the Wales Summit with seven consecutive years of real growth in non-US defence expenditure, which reinforces our shared responsibility to provide capabilities to the Alliance. All Allies have increased the amount they spend on defence in real terms and this trend is set to continue. Since 2014, European Allies and Canada will have added 260 billion US dollars by the end of this year. Furthermore, ten Allies are expected to spend 2% or more of GDP on defence this year. About two-thirds of Allies plan to reach or exceed the 2% guideline by 2024. Additionally, 24 Allies are spending more than 20% of their defence expenditures on major equipment, including related research and development, and, according to their national plans, 27 Allies will meet the 20% guideline by 2024. Our overall security and defence depend both on how much we spend and how we spend it. Allies continue to make valuable force and capability contributions that benefit the security of the Euro-Atlantic area through NATO’s operations, missions, and other activities, as well as through the operations and missions conducted under national authority and the authority of other organisations. Allies invest considerable resources in preparing their forces, capabilities, and infrastructure for Alliance activities and Allies’ operations. In the years ahead, in line with the Defence Investment Pledge and building on the good progress to date, we affirm our commitment to continue our efforts as a matter of priority across the three pillars of cash, capabilities, and contributions. We must and will do more.
There are some on this forum who say NATO isn't ready because of the spending shortfalls, and my response is this.
Compared to what?
03-06-2022 | 05:24 PM
#799
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 502
From the Brussels Summit 2021.
All this panty-twisting for a self-imposed investment target. It turns out the Russian military was letting their heavy equipment rot on tarmacs, but you're complaining that the $1.2T budget wasn't distributed enough.
There are some on this forum who say NATO isn't ready because of the spending shortfalls, and my response is this.
Compared to what?
All this panty-twisting for a self-imposed investment target. It turns out the Russian military was letting their heavy equipment rot on tarmacs, but you're complaining that the $1.2T budget wasn't distributed enough.
There are some on this forum who say NATO isn't ready because of the spending shortfalls, and my response is this.
Compared to what?
03-06-2022 | 05:31 PM
#800
Banned
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,112
Likes: 140
Nonsense. Both the George Bush administration and the Obama administration have been after the European nations to increase their defense spending. The have repeatedly delayed and reneged (Poland excepted) since that time, and showed little signs of moving that way until about a week ago. And it was the Obama administration - not Trump, who quietly accepted Russia taking over the Crimea. And the current POTUS (who was in the Obama administration those eight years) only a few weeks ago stated publicly that he would essentially accept Russia annexing the two Russian speaking separatist areas.
You can IMAGINE Trump would have done practically anything, but none of this stuff happened on his watch.
You can IMAGINE Trump would have done practically anything, but none of this stuff happened on his watch.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
