Ukraine conflict
06-15-2023, 07:55 AM
#821
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,319
Originally Posted by Excargodog
https://www.yahoo.com/news/navy-two-...113458374.html
Allied nations simply must step up. The US shouldn’t have to do it all…
Allied nations simply must step up. The US shouldn’t have to do it all…
06-15-2023, 08:19 AM
#822
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,533
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I would put the UK in the category of at least they're trying... they have SSNs and CV's which have global power projection utility.
Last edited by Excargodog; 06-15-2023 at 08:39 AM.
06-15-2023, 08:51 AM
#823
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Posts: 1,275
Originally Posted by Excargodog
I think you are simply UNABLE to demonstrate your assertion with any sort of meaningful fairness, not too lazy. In no way is an objective assessment of the difficulties and capabilities of both sides a proRussian position.
Why? Why should I alter posts that I believe represent reality so some anonymous stranger can compare me to either of two individuals neither of who are even alive or aware of current circumstances.
And if you want to know who I have actually been criticizing, it has been our feckless NATO “allies” who got us into this mess (and others) because they WILL NOT (as opposed to CAN NOT) live up to their obligations for collective defense. WWII was damn near 80 years ago and their combined GDP is TEN TIMES that of Russia. Explain to me why we are still paying for their defense when they refuse to. Who do you compare THEM to? Deterrence fails when you WON’T (not can’t but won’t) fund a military capable of deterring.
https://www.politico.eu/article/amer...tary-industry/
Why? Why should I alter posts that I believe represent reality so some anonymous stranger can compare me to either of two individuals neither of who are even alive or aware of current circumstances.
And if you want to know who I have actually been criticizing, it has been our feckless NATO “allies” who got us into this mess (and others) because they WILL NOT (as opposed to CAN NOT) live up to their obligations for collective defense. WWII was damn near 80 years ago and their combined GDP is TEN TIMES that of Russia. Explain to me why we are still paying for their defense when they refuse to. Who do you compare THEM to? Deterrence fails when you WON’T (not can’t but won’t) fund a military capable of deterring.
https://www.politico.eu/article/amer...tary-industry/
06-15-2023, 09:02 AM
#824
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,319
Originally Posted by Excargodog
The numbers speak for themselves. Yeah, they are FAR better than Germany which has the biggest GDP in Europe, but their deployable numbers and logistics for sustainment just aren’t that great. Too many “peace divedend”s carved out of their budget for too many years.
GDP is a nice metric for NATO purposes but doesn't directly correlate to capabilities. I like expeditionary capabilities in an ally, not too many have that.
Also manpower is not an apples to apples comparison with past decades and the cold war... technology is a tremendous multiplier vs. most of the usual bad guys (who all struggle with innovation). Exhibit A: US military manpower 1990 vs. 2023.
06-15-2023, 09:48 AM
#825
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,533
Originally Posted by rickair7777
This century: More $, relatively flat % of GDP, but their GDP really spiked.
GDP is a nice metric for NATO purposes but doesn't directly correlate to capabilities. I like expeditionary capabilities in an ally, not too many have that.
Also manpower is not an apples to apples comparison with past decades and the cold war... technology is a tremendous multiplier vs. most of the usual bad guys (who all struggle with innovation). Exhibit A: US military manpower 1990 vs. 2023.
GDP is a nice metric for NATO purposes but doesn't directly correlate to capabilities. I like expeditionary capabilities in an ally, not too many have that.
Also manpower is not an apples to apples comparison with past decades and the cold war... technology is a tremendous multiplier vs. most of the usual bad guys (who all struggle with innovation). Exhibit A: US military manpower 1990 vs. 2023.
So show be a metric where NATO in general has improved. And as I granted, the UK is likely the best of the lot, excepting Poland and a few of the ex-Soviet satellites.
06-15-2023, 09:57 AM
#826
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,533
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
maybe you can start a F@ck nato thread then. Unless you are saying we should let russia absorb ukraine for wheat and port access just to “stick it to nato”. Your rhetoric is pro russia as spilled by your propaganda overlords. The reality is that people are trying. Ukraine wouldn’t have lasted the first summer without assistance, so anything you say about feckless allies, (though individually might be true), does not stand the test of actual battlefield success. Wether youre a vlad or a tucker its still just head in the sand right wing bullsh1t. Grow a pair and help out against authoritarian regimes. Or just be a coward and let every authoritarian government know that the US wont stand up to them. Your choice……..vlad
Pointing out deficiencies in NATO funding is hardly a “F@ck NATO” thread. It is simply pointing out deficiencies in NATO allies’ funding. Both Bush administrations did that. The Clinton and Obama administrations did that. The Trump and Biden administrations have done that. Yet there has been scant improvement, even since the Ukraine War started.
From President Obama at a NATO summit Sept 5 2014:
Fourth, all 28 NATO nations have pledged to increase their investments in defense and to move toward investing 2 percent of their GDP in our collective security. These resources will help NATO invest in critical capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and missile defense. And this commitment makes clear that NATO will not be complacent. Our Alliance will reverse the decline in defense spending and rise to meet the challenges that we face in the 21st century.
And China, with a GDP TEN TIMES THAT OF RUSSIA, is the real challenge to our security.
Now you can keep up the “Vlad” and “Tucker” and “grow a pair” bu||**** all you want, it doesn’t change FACTS. The US has other allies BESIDES NATO. Like Japan, So Korea, and the Aussies. Resources we must divert to NATO because the bulk of NATO members are too damn cheap to fund their own defense compromises our ability to defend them and ourselves. That’s a FACT that all your whiny ad hominem attacks and insults won’t change
Last edited by Excargodog; 06-15-2023 at 10:09 AM.
06-15-2023, 10:24 AM
#827
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2022
Posts: 1,275
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Pointing out deficiencies in NATO funding is hardly a “F@ck NATO” thread. It is simply pointing out deficiencies in NATO allies’ funding. Both Bush administrations did that. The Clinton and Obama administrations did that. The Trump and Biden administrations have done that. Yet there has been scant improvement, even since the Ukraine War started.
From President Obama at a NATO summit Sept 5 2014:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...ess-conference
And China, with a GDP TEN TIMES THAT OF RUSSIA, is the real challenge to our security.
Now you can keep up the “Vlad” and “Tucker” and “grow a pair” bu||**** all you want, it doesn’t change FACTS. The US has other allies BESIDES NATO. Like Japan, So Korea, and the Aussies. Resources we must divert to NATO because the bulk of NATO members are too damn cheap to fund their own defense compromises our ability to defend them and ourselves. That’s a FACT that all your whiny ad hominem attacks and insults won’t change
From President Obama at a NATO summit Sept 5 2014:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov...ess-conference
And China, with a GDP TEN TIMES THAT OF RUSSIA, is the real challenge to our security.
Now you can keep up the “Vlad” and “Tucker” and “grow a pair” bu||**** all you want, it doesn’t change FACTS. The US has other allies BESIDES NATO. Like Japan, So Korea, and the Aussies. Resources we must divert to NATO because the bulk of NATO members are too damn cheap to fund their own defense compromises our ability to defend them and ourselves. That’s a FACT that all your whiny ad hominem attacks and insults won’t change
an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last
-churchill
otherwise known as cowardice
Pres. Muffley
06-15-2023, 05:55 PM
#829
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Position: Cl65 left
Posts: 175
[QUOTE=Hubcapped;3651294]youre right dude, we should totally let russia have Ukraine because of nato “facts” and “reasons”. Thatll show em.
an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last
-churchill
otherwise known as cowardice[/QUOTE
This is exactly what Britain did before World War II. In my opinion Great Britain has taught the US a lot of bad habits in foreign policy.
an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last
-churchill
otherwise known as cowardice[/QUOTE
This is exactly what Britain did before World War II. In my opinion Great Britain has taught the US a lot of bad habits in foreign policy.
06-15-2023, 09:43 PM
#830
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,533
Originally Posted by Hubcapped
youre right dude, we should totally let russia have Ukraine because of nato “facts” and “reasons”. Thatll show em.
an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last
-churchill
otherwise known as cowardice
an appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last
-churchill
otherwise known as cowardice
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
