NATO return to Cold War force structure

[Perun]

For the first time, fighter jets from Finland have been certified to join Nato's Air Policing mission in the skies above Romania.

Seven Finnish F/A-18 Hornets will now fly Air Policing sorties alongside Royal Air Force Typhoons after they received their mission-ready certificates from the Deputy Commander of Nato's Southern Combined Air Operations Centre, Brigadier General Avraam Kazantzoglou.

"Having the Finnish detachment deploy to Romania a bit over a year after Finland became a Nato member, together with the Royal Air Force, is a crystal-clear message that we stand together as allies," he said.

https://www.forces.net/nato/first-finnish-fa-18-hornets-they-lead-way-nato-mission-romania

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 minutes ago, Perun said:

Why would finland be any diferent then the rest of NATO members and NATO N bomb sharing

Because they have a direct experience of war with Russia, and Sweden doesnt. Well, considerably longer ago anyway. There are still people alive in Finland that remember what it was like to be invaded.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Perun said:

Why would finland be any diferent then the rest of NATO members and NATO N bomb sharing

Nuclear sharing was something arranged half a century ago. Bringing in new members to the agreement would probably be a political bomb in terms foreign policy and domestic policy for everyone involved.

Also I would argue that pre positioning tactical nukes in forward locations with the requirement that the U.S. and host countries agree on delivery has no deterrent value in the current strategic environment. It was intended for a situation where the U.S. had overwhelming strategic nuclear advantage and the USSR had a nearly as overwhelming conventional advantage. If anything the reverse is true now.

Edited June 21 by Josh

[Martineleca]

5 hours ago, Perun said:

Why would finland be any diferent then the rest of NATO members and NATO N bomb sharing

Historically Finland partly due to its proximity to Russia's heartland has always been a special case different from say Norway further north, it also became a flashpoint in 1940 when the UK and France were close to declaring war against the Soviet Union after previously failing to do so for invading Poland.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War

Edited June 21 by Martineleca

[Perun]

3 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Historically Finland partly due to its proximity to Russia's heartland has always been a special case different from say Norway further north, it also became a flashpoint in 1940 when the UK and France were close to declaring war against the Soviet Union after previously failing to do so for invading Poland.

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War

And there was "Operation Pike"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike

[Perun]

A Romanian village is set to become Nato's biggest airbase in Europe

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977wggg4pgo

[Martineleca]

On 6/12/2024 at 12:50 PM, seahawk said:

The problem is not that they would not have been able to built more or better cars, the leaders simply decided that no better cars or larger number would be built. In a planned economy consumer demand does not shape production, political decision does.

Apart from this policy being morally bankrupt the consequences for ordinary people in closed countries like North Korea or Cuba are plain to see, at least the latter had access to Western vehicles before Castro came to power and some of them are in use to this day. If you're still running cars from seven decades ago purchased before the "glorious" revolution that's an indication of its total failure, no port visits from the Russian or Chinese navies will change that.

[glenn239]

https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202302/06/WS63e054d6a31057c47ebad0ec.html

[Martineleca]

7 hours ago, glenn239 said:

https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202302/06/WS63e054d6a31057c47ebad0ec.html

https://www.power-technology.com/news/cuba-power-cut-switches-public-lighting-off/

Good luck charging up that ev when the power's out, at least the old Buick could alternatively run on alcohol...

[seahawk]

13 hours ago, Martineleca said:

Apart from this policy being morally bankrupt the consequences for ordinary people in closed countries like North Korea or Cuba are plain to see, at least the latter had access to Western vehicles before Castro came to power and some of them are in use to this day. If you're still running cars from seven decades ago purchased before the "glorious" revolution that's an indication of its total failure, no port visits from the Russian or Chinese navies will change that.

Well, today one would call this sustainable and efficient at preserving resources.

[Martineleca]

2 hours ago, seahawk said:

Well, today one would call this sustainable and efficient at preserving resources.

Who's ONE? You mean to say the green freaks organised by the KGB more than half a century ago as part of a massive subversion operation to undermine the industrial foundation of the West, they finally got crushed along with the liberals in the last EU election, sadly not before succeeding in convincing Germany to shut down its nuclear power plants at the worst possible time. Though that is mostly on the CDU for allowing an East German Komsomol harpy to take over their party...

[Martineleca]

On 6/21/2024 at 7:41 PM, Josh said:

Also I would argue that pre positioning tactical nukes in forward locations with the requirement that the U.S. and host countries agree on delivery has no deterrent value in the current strategic environment. It was intended for a situation where the U.S. had overwhelming strategic nuclear advantage and the USSR had a nearly as overwhelming conventional advantage.

I thought the purpose of the policy is that it would have been prohibitively expensive for the US which operated only around 30% of NATO aircraft on the continent to  fully support all frontline squadrons that would be responsible for tactical nuclear strikes, it was the same with atomic field artillery and tactical ballistic missiles. Nuclear sharing is also effectively financial burden sharing.

[Martineleca]

Pentagon moves to allow US military contractors in Ukraine

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/pentagon-moves-to-allow-u-s-military-contractors-in-ukraine/

- That's interesting, wonder how many NATO troops would under this scheme volunteer to operate the complex weaponry their own countries are sending, especially air defense systems. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Martineleca said:

Pentagon moves to allow US military contractors in Ukraine

https://mil.in.ua/en/news/pentagon-moves-to-allow-u-s-military-contractors-in-ukraine/

- That's interesting, wonder how many NATO troops would under this scheme volunteer to operate the complex weaponry their own countries are sending, especially air defense systems. 

its taken them 2 YEARS to approve something that could have been done in the first 2 months. I swear the dozy feckers in that ivory tower want Ukraine to lose.

 

[Martineleca]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

its taken them 2 YEARS to approve something that could have been done in the first 2 months.

I remember when russians were screaming bloody murder that Blackwater operatives were active in Georgia and the Donbass, but when they really ran into some in Syria had their noses bloodied, still not as bad as the kicking Wagner got. This just shows that if the West had wanted to participate in a real proxy confrontation, Girkin's band of brigands would not have gotten to Luhansk city before becoming sunflower fertilizer. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yep. And whats more, we COULD have provided aircraft, aircrew and groundcrew to the Ukrainian airforce in the first year, which would likely have resulted in far higher casualties to the Russians, and fewer for the Ukrainians. Same with the tanks. We could have had contractors ont he ground manning the vehicles. After all, the Russians do it in Africa. Why couldnt we do it in Ukraine?

I simply dont understand this reticence. Does Biden actually think he is avoiding a nuclear war here? Because inevitably, if we wont let Ukraine win, then it will lose. Its that simple. Even a draw is going to lead to the next war. The feeble mindedness of the US administration is hard to countenance. And im sure when we see the documents in a couple of decades time, we will find it hard to credit their bone idleness.

[ink]

31 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yep. And whats more, we COULD have provided aircraft, aircrew and groundcrew to the Ukrainian airforce in the first year, which would likely have resulted in far higher casualties to the Russians, and fewer for the Ukrainians. Same with the tanks. We could have had contractors ont he ground manning the vehicles. After all, the Russians do it in Africa. Why couldnt we do it in Ukraine?

Perhaps the fear might have been that Western European publics might have been a lot less supportive of aid to Ukraine if that also included "our boys" burning to death in Challengers and Leopards.

31 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I simply dont understand this reticence. Does Biden actually think he is avoiding a nuclear war here? Because inevitably, if we wont let Ukraine win, then it will lose. Its that simple. Even a draw is going to lead to the next war. The feeble mindedness of the US administration is hard to countenance. And im sure when we see the documents in a couple of decades time, we will find it hard to credit their bone idleness.

In the US, there likely would have been riots if Biden had sent US men and women to let the Russians take potshots at them.

Anyway, this whole line of reasoning is only possible if you buy fully into the "our hearts bleed for Ukraine and we'll do anything we can to help" narrative churned out by the media. Personally, I don't.

I think it makes much more sense for everyone West of Lvov to let the Ukrainians fight and die and give them all the means they need to do that.

Edited June 26 by ink

[urbanoid]

I don't think anyone would give a shit about 'Blackwater' types.

[glenn239]

On 6/24/2024 at 12:33 AM, Martineleca said:

https://www.power-technology.com/news/cuba-power-cut-switches-public-lighting-off/

Good luck charging up that ev when the power's out, at least the old Buick could alternatively run on alcohol...

China to develop solar farms in Cuba, though doubts remain over efficiency - Fundación Andrés Bello | China Latinoamerica (fundacionandresbello.org)

 

[glenn239]

1 hour ago, ink said:

 

Anyway, this whole line of reasoning is only possible if you buy fully into the "our hearts bleed for Ukraine and we'll do anything we can to help" narrative churned out by the media. Personally, I don't.

Since 2013 Stuart has been all for the NATO policy that has led Ukraine to disaster.  He couldn't get Ukraine into the situation it is in now fast enough.  For 10 years before the war I tried to reason with him, saying that Ukraine would be MUCH worse off it it continued its dalliance with NATO than if it went full core neutral for the next few decades.    Now we are at a point where Ukrainian dead are surely north of 250,000, the country is falling apart, the war is obviously lost and disaster looms, and he has the audacity to complain that US politicians continue to shirk a world war for what is, for the West, an expendable cause.

Well, it wouldn't be right if we diverted from the Neocon 3 Step program:

Step 1: Provoke avoidable war in place of no actual vital interest to the West.

Step 2: Lose war.

Step 3: Find scapegoat.

 

Edited June 26 by glenn239

[sunday]

3 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Step 1: Start avoidable war in place of no actual vital interest to the West

This Ukrainian thing is going to be more pointless that the former champion of pointless wars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War

[Mighty_Zuk]

13 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Since 2013 Stuart has been all for the NATO policy that has led Ukraine to disaster.  He couldn't get Ukraine into the situation it is in now fast enough.  For 10 years before the war I tried to reason with him, saying that Ukraine would be MUCH worse off it it continued its dalliance with NATO than if it went full core neutral for the next few decades.    Now we are at a point where Ukrainian dead are surely north of 250,000, the country is falling apart, the war is obviously lost and disaster looms, and he has the audacity to complain that US politicians continue to shirk a world war for what is, for the West, an expendable cause.

Well, it wouldn't be right if we diverted from the Neocon 3 Step program:

Step 1: Provoke avoidable war in place of no actual vital interest to the West.

Step 2: Lose war.

Step 3: Find scapegoat.

Top 10 most delusional geopolitical takes of 2024.

Edited June 26 by Mighty_Zuk

[Martineleca]

6 hours ago, glenn239 said:

China to develop solar farms in Cuba, though doubts remain over efficiency - Fundación Andrés Bello | China Latinoamerica (fundacionandresbello.org)

Chinese solar panels that lose 50% efficiency after three years and start decaying completely after five is one of the most expensive scams in history, I personally know people who covered the entire roof of their houses with them, presently a full day of sunshine barely generates enough power for a small car battery...

[Martineleca]

14 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Top 10 most delusional geopolitical takes of 2024.

I really don't understand the "neutrality" point of view, throughout Russia's history their neighbours have either been under their boot or under the protection of other great powers, the chaotic interwar years were unique in that manner and unlikely to be replicated. So far not a single NATO country has been invaded by an outside hostile force while Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova that did not join the alliance partly through internal naivete and Western indifference all have large swathes of their internationally recognised territory currently occupied by Russia, which paradoxically further reduces their chances for membership because of this land dispute. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

53 minutes ago, Martineleca said:

I really don't understand the "neutrality" point of view, throughout Russia's history their neighbours have either been under their boot or under the protection of other great powers, the chaotic interwar years were unique in that manner and unlikely to be replicated. So far not a single NATO country has been invaded by an outside hostile force while Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova that did not join the alliance partly through internal naivete and Western indifference all have large swathes of their internationally recognised territory currently occupied by Russia, which paradoxically further reduces their chances for membership because of this land dispute. 

Yep. And I know it may sound really odd, but while Russia sure spews a lot of anti-humanist, anti-NATO propaganda, I have yet to see a single coherent physical action or policy item on Russia's part to show that.

Sure if it was entirely up to Russia, they would probably vote against other nations joining NATO, but I'm really not convinced it's considered a significant issue for Putty.