Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 hours ago, rmgill said:

How many decades did we go on in the Middle East and Trump came in and got an agreement between the Sunni Nations and Israel in ways that Clinton, Carter and many others could not do? 

He's a deal maker, NOT a politician. Stop making category errors. 

There's talk of "deal of the century" being back on the table. 

Boys, we've never been so back!

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

Suggest you read the rest of the Wikipedia article you cited.*

"Since the start of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan through mid-2019, nearly 2,400 American servicemembers have died.[164] Additionally, 20,719 U.S. service members have been wounded in hostile action, according to the Defense Department."

Stop waving the bloody shirt.  As Mighty_Zuk said, the point isn't who had more wounded or had more dead.  It is who has been carrying the load.  You are mad that the Trump refers to the EU as a rival.  But that's what they are--economic and political rivals.  Sometimes our objectives align, sometimes they don't.  But the EU (and you) want all the economic and political benefits of that union--including engaging in monopolistic tactics to drive US companies under--while demanding the US provide the common defense.

Doug

* And don't act offended when you put up a list of numbers and people use those numbers against your argument.

Nobody is suggesting the Americans didnt take the most casualties. What I AM suggesting is they would have been considerably higher if your allies didnt have your back. This is self evident. You would have taken well over 10000 extra wounded in Afghanistan alone, not even counting the bodies How many in iraq? I didnt even count that.

And its no bloody shirt when every sodding week for the past 10 years, even when Afghanistan was going on, I heard the usual voices in this grate site condeming the Europeans for not spending more on defence, getting screwed on tarriffs whilst our servicemen were dying on behalf of American war aims in the sandbox. I dont expect gratitude, but contempt is surely too much.

We are not rivals, we are not even political rivals, we are allies. We buy your war machines, we even fund the development of them. We even co-produce them. We even own your defence companies, because seemingly you trust us enough not to stiff you.  This 'them and us' atitude may play well to the cheap seats, but frankly its taking the piss considering how much we share intelligence data and have each others back in the shadows. When extraordinary rendition was going on, who had your back snatching terrorists and hiding them on black sites? Thats right, the Europeans, whom are now getting the sticky finger and accused of being competitiors and bad allies. NATO isnt even YOUR alliance. Its ours. Just like 5 eyes, you joined a system that was already extant, and then took credit for it, and now arbitrarily assert you can tear it down if you want to.

Tell me again, whom is your worst enemy here? PRC, Russia, the EU, or yourselves? Because your nominal allies would really like an answer. I dont think you guys even know, you are so busy creating enemies  like a Jack Russell looking for squirrels.

And yes, your gratitude for our servicemens sacrifice is duly noted.

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted
21 hours ago, urbanoid said:

You 'know' what he's going to do while in reality he may not even know that himself yet.

So what you are saying is, he isnt even consistent to himself? Can someone explain to me why this is a good thing for Europe in foreign policy, but clearly being a TDS, I struggle to grasp it.

I know what Putin thinks of him, and that in itself is the problem.

Posted
2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

There's talk of "deal of the century" being back on the table. 

Boys, we've never been so back!

I wouldnt get too excited. Trump says Israel can do what it likes, but he wants the war finished and the hostages back before he takes office. Im sure Bibi is absolutely thrilled at the prospect of successfully prosecuting 3 wars in 2 months.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

So what you are saying is, he isnt even consistent to himself? Can someone explain to me why this is a good thing for Europe in foreign policy, but clearly being a TDS, I struggle to grasp it.

I know what Putin thinks of him, and that in itself is the problem.

What I'm saying is that he's been... campaigning?

Posted (edited)

And what im saying is, words have consequences, particularly when you are talking about foreign policy. Especially when you are talking about foreign policy.

Ill grant you Kennedy was ALWAYS banging on about the missile gap in 1960, even when he knew there wasnt one. But lets give credit, he wasnt saying NATO was obsolete, our allies are not paying their way, lets sign a peace treaty with North Korea, Ill get peace in the middle east in 2 months.

He is setting unrealistic expectations, to say the least. And he is either going to disappoint all the people to whom he made all these elaborate promises, or he is going to convince his enemies and opponents he is a babbling idiot. Which frankly Im a long way towards accepting anyway, but he wasnt trying to convince me presumably.

 Personally, Im still waiting for the peace with North Korea he promised was a heartbeat away last time. Anyone here still believe the North Korean problem is 'basically solved'? How Putin wouldnt invade Ukraine on his watch, when Putin already was at war in Ukraine all through his tenure? Have we all forgotten so easily?

 

Edited by Stuart Galbraith
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

I wouldnt get too excited. Trump says Israel can do what it likes, but he wants the war finished and the hostages back before he takes office. Im sure Bibi is absolutely thrilled at the prospect of successfully prosecuting 3 wars in 2 months.

"Deal of the century" is something else. It relates to reframing the Palestinian issue to solve it at its core and de-weaponize it. Its relation to the war in Gaza is indirect.

Also, while Trumpy has no magical solutions, the US definitely has the means to significantly accelerate the conclusion of the conflict. In fact, my main point of criticism vs Biden was his decision to delay the conclusion, which ultimately significantly impacted Israel's economy.

If you want, we can discuss the US's options in another thread.

 

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Nobody is suggesting the Americans didnt take the most casualties. What I AM suggesting is they would have been considerably higher if your allies didnt have your back. This is self evident. You would have taken well over 10000 extra wounded in Afghanistan alone, not even counting the bodies How many in iraq? I didnt even count that.

And its no bloody shirt when every sodding week for the past 10 years, even when Afghanistan was going on, I heard the usual voices in this grate site condeming the Europeans for not spending more on defence, getting screwed on tarriffs whilst our servicemen were dying on behalf of American war aims in the sandbox. I dont expect gratitude, but contempt is surely too much.

We are not rivals, we are not even political rivals, we are allies. We buy your war machines, we even fund the development of them. We even co-produce them. We even own your defence companies, because seemingly you trust us enough not to stiff you.  This 'them and us' atitude may play well to the cheap seats, but frankly its taking the piss considering how much we share intelligence data and have each others back in the shadows. When extraordinary rendition was going on, who had your back snatching terrorists and hiding them on black sites? Thats right, the Europeans, whom are now getting the sticky finger and accused of being competitiors and bad allies. NATO isnt even YOUR alliance. Its ours. Just like 5 eyes, you joined a system that was already extant, and then took credit for it, and now arbitrarily assert you can tear it down if you want to.

Tell me again, whom is your worst enemy here? PRC, Russia, the EU, or yourselves? Because your nominal allies would really like an answer. I dont think you guys even know, you are so busy creating enemies  like a Jack Russell looking for squirrels.

And yes, your gratitude for our servicemens sacrifice is duly noted.

 

You're suggesting exactly that.  You tried to discount American dead by showing off your wounded.  And your non-combat injured to make yourself feel righteous. 

It's waving the bloody shirt because Europe wasn't meeting their obligations for defense spending and haven't for a long time.  Just because you sent a contingent to fight alongside ours, doesn't magically relieve you of your obligations to a common defense system.  Or insulate you from criticism.  

During that period you're whining about, when did America fail to meet the NATO spending requirement on our military forces?  Who was paying the most into NATO?  The US. 

Sending your servicemen to die or get injured doesn't relieve you, as a UK taxpayer, of meeting your financial obligations to your own national defense.  Did you ever stop to think what your own & Europe's casualties would've been if you had been meeting the military spending requirements?  If they were better equipped and supplied, do you think everyone might've taken fewer hits?

Your attitude towards your own servicemen's sacrifice is duly noted.  :rolleyes:

Doug

 

Edited by Ol Paint
Sentence fragment.
Posted
On 11/6/2024 at 6:09 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

That's my opinion as well. Do you have any particular grievances with him though?

 Right now? No.

As far as I'm concerned he's a new President on a new term and we're at a clean slate right now. Donald Trump won the election fair and square, without any shenanigans, Russian or otherwise. He has a clear political mandate to move the country in whatever direction a majority of its people prefer.

I'm not particularly interested in domestic US policies as we have enough international stuff to take care of, and whatever role the US will play there, we'll see.

 

Posted
5 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

You're suggesting exactly that.  You tried to discount American dead by showing off your wounded.  And your non-combat injured to make yourself feel righteous. 

It's waving the bloody shirt because Europe wasn't meeting their obligations for defense spending and haven't for a long time.  Just because you sent a contingent to fight alongside ours, doesn't magically relieve you of your obligations to a common defense system.  Or insulate you from criticism.  

During that period you're whining about, when did America fail to meet the NATO spending requirement on our military forces?  Who was paying the most into NATO?  The US. 

Sending your servicemen to die or get injured doesn't relieve you, as a UK taxpayer, of meeting your financial obligations to your own national defense.  Did you ever stop to think what your own & Europe's casualties would've been if you had been meeting the military spending requirements?  If they were better equipped and supplied, do you think everyone might've taken fewer hits?

Your attitude towards your own servicemen's sacrifice is duly noted.  :rolleyes:

Doug

 

Gunner, target destroyed. Cease fire. 

Posted

Europeans bad for Europe;

https://rmx.news/article/we-have-become-the-gaza-of-europe-wilders-slams-horrific-night-of-violence-against-jews-in-amsterdam/
 

Quote

 

The leader of the Netherlands’ largest political party has described the country as “the Gaza of Europe” after a wave of violence broke out in Amsterdam in the early hours of Friday morning, targeting Jews.

Harrowing video footage from the scene shows Jewish individuals being beaten, thrown into canals, and even run over by mobs of Muslim men. In one instance, an attacker can be heard shouting, “That’s for Palestine, motherfucker,” while repeatedly kicking a motionless man. Some Jewish visitors sought refuge in nearby buildings as crowds attempted to force their way inside, according to reports from The Jerusalem Post.

 

 

Posted

Wow, a miracle!

Not that there's a whole lot of that Russian LNG anyway, around 15% of EU's imports (I posted the chart today in the non-green energy thread), but the only way for the further cuts not to be welcome anymore is when it reaches 0.

 

 

Posted
8 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

It's waving the bloody shirt because Europe wasn't meeting their obligations for defense spending and haven't for a long time.  Just because you sent a contingent to fight alongside ours, doesn't magically relieve you of your obligations to a common defense system. 

Can you point to exactly which obligation wasn't met by European members of NATO?

In the process, you can also point to which obligation does Europe have to support the US outside of the geographic boundaries of NATO as it has been doing for the last 20 years.

Posted

The US remains the only NATO member to call an article 5, a point that seems lost on most Americans here that regard NATO as an unnecessary obligation that's best divested.

Calling the spending limit is a red flag. Putin got that raised, wholly independent of Trump's efforts to scare everyone shirtless to do it.

 

Posted
3 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

Can you point to exactly which obligation wasn't met by European members of NATO?

In the process, you can also point to which obligation does Europe have to support the US outside of the geographic boundaries of NATO as it has been doing for the last 20 years.

For the willfully blind:

Quote

Article 3

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 6 1

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

  • on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
  • on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm

 

Quote

The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending to continue to ensure the Alliance's military readiness. This guideline also serves as an indicator of a country's political will to contribute to NATO's common defence efforts, since the defence capacity of each member has an impact on the overall perception of the Alliance's credibility as a politico-military organisation.

The combined wealth of the non-US Allies, measured in GDP, is almost equal to that of the United States. However, non-US Allies together spend less than half of what the United States spends on defence. This imbalance has been a constant, with variations, throughout the history of the Alliance and has grown more pronounced since the tragic events of 11 September 2001, after which the United States significantly increased its defence spending. The volume of US defence expenditure represents approximately two thirds of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. However, this is not the amount that the United States contributes to the operational running of NATO, which is shared with all Allies according to the principle of common funding. Moreover, US defence spending also covers commitments outside the Euro-Atlantic area. It should be noted, nonetheless, that the Alliance relies on the United States for the provision of some essential capabilities, regarding for instance, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electromagnetic warfare.

The effects of the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the declining share of resources devoted to defence in many Allied countries, up to 2014, have exacerbated this imbalance and also revealed growing asymmetries in capability among European Allies. France, Germany and the United Kingdom together represent approximately 50% of defence spending by the non-US Allies. At the Wales Summit in 2014, in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East, NATO Leaders agreed a Defence Investment Pledge to reverse the trend of declining defence budgets and decided:

  • Allies currently meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending will aim to continue to do so;
  • Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will: halt any decline; aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows; and aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm
 

 

Quote

The 2% defence investment guideline

In 2014, NATO Heads of State and Government agreed to commit 2% of their national Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defence spending, to help ensure the Alliance's continued military readiness. This decision was taken in response to Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, and amid broader instability in the Middle East. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge built on an earlier commitment to meeting this 2% of GDP guideline, agreed in 2006 by NATO Defence Ministers. The 2% of GDP guideline is an important indicator of the political resolve of individual Allies to contribute to NATO’s common defence efforts. 

In 2024, 23 Allies are expected to meet or exceed the target of investing at least 2% of GDP in defence, compared to only three Allies in 2014.  Over the past decade, European Allies and Canada have steadily increased their collective investment in defence – from 1.43% of their combined GDP in 2014, to 2.02% in 2024, when they are investing a combined total of more than USD 430 billion in defence.

In order to ensure that these funds are spent in the most effective and efficient way to acquire and deploy modern capabilities, NATO Allies have also agreed that at least 20% of defence expenditure should be devoted to major new equipment. This includes associated research and development, perceived as a crucial indicator for the scale and pace of modernisation.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_49198.htm

 

Doug

 

 

Posted
11 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Calling the spending limit is a red flag. Putin got that raised, wholly independent of Trump's efforts to scare everyone shirtless to do it.

Had every NATO member got spending above 3%, something they had over a decade to do, it's possible that either:

1. Putin wouldn't invade Ukraine.

2. Ukraine would be in a far, far better position, possibly even ending the war by now.

The 3 hardest limits to aid to Ukraine are:

1. Europe having no equipment to donate to Ukraine. At best some old stuff that's hardly relevant.

2. US and Europe not ramping up production to continue the aid.

3. US and European restrictions on weapons usage.

It's shameful that 2 years in, Ukraine still doesn't have over 2,000 European MBTs, 5,000 European IFVs, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of long range cruise missiles.

 

Posted

Putin invaded because he believed NATO would do nothing but sent an angry letter and the Ukraine would collapse within days. They Russians attacked without full ammo loads and had a marching band with them (for the victory parade). They expected to be welcomed as liberators and resistance to be extremely limited.

Short of parking NATO tanks in the Ukraine, nothing NATO does would change this.

Posted

Do you know what I think? And I flatter ive been right about Putin more times than not. I think Putin would have done it anyway, because he would have calculated Ukraine wasnt in NATO, would become part of NATO, and if he did anything, we wouldnt. That calculation remains, whomever is in the White House, whatever the state of NATO. Because Putin is crazy, even if he is surrounded by people that arent, that wont tell him the truth.

The only thing that might have have stopped him was parking F35's on Ukrainian airfields, and a NATO battlegroup, right up against the donbas. That might have given him pause for thought. But as he is crazy, perhaps not even that.

I think even Leopard 1's have been useful, simply because they were designed to kill the ancient kit the Russians are mostly using.  So I think age of the kit is less relevant than not having ammunition producers. The folly of relying on a few ammunition suppliers in Europe has been proven. But nobody seemingly is in a hurry to build new ones, even though we had exactly the same problem in 1915, and had the problem cracked a year later by the Battle of the Somme. I refuse to believe we cannot do the same now.

I can understand why they dont have vehicles, they take a long time to ramp up production. OTOH NATO is increasing its capacity to produce AFV's. But too damn slow. There is no urgency, and im afraid that lack of urgency has a lot to do with an octogenarian as President. Maybe it will be different under Trump, I doubt it frankly.

 

Essentially politics is what failed here, not NATO. And destroying NATO wouldnt solve the problem of stupid politicians anyway.

 

Posted
5 minutes ago, seahawk said:

Putin invaded because he believed NATO would do nothing but sent an angry letter and the Ukraine would collapse within days. They Russians attacked without full ammo loads and had a marching band with them (for the victory parade). They expected to be welcomed as liberators and resistance to be extremely limited.

Short of parking NATO tanks in the Ukraine, nothing NATO does would change this.

Is that true about the marching band? LOL, Id not heard that.

Reminds me of the story about when they were clearing up the supply dumps in Afghanistan in 1988, and under all the pile of arms and equipment they found the remnants of a cake from 1979. A friendship cake to be presented to the Afghans for Socialist solidarity. In all the excitement, they seemingly had forgotten to share it...

Posted
49 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

1. Europe having no equipment to donate to Ukraine. At best some old stuff that's hardly relevant

Disagree completely on the "old stuff hardly relevant" part.

Some of the most effective weapon systems donated to Ukraine was old stuff with specific roles that suddenly became relevant again over there, for example, Gepard. Systems like Roland could have been even more useful if Germany kept them on hand instead of scrapping them.

Posted

I wish, I wish, we had held onto Rapier. Or at least some more of those Stormer Starstreak vehicles and not flogged them off. I mean, is storage space THAT expensive? How the hell do supermarkets manage it?

Posted (edited)

Pretty sad how long it took for the 35mm ammunition to be ready for Ukrainian Gepards. 

Points about Europe are understood thanks to B1. 

Even if just 2% by European countries was maintained since 2010, European readiness to offer assistance may have been quicker and calculative enough to buttress enough deterrance to prevent the 2022 invasion. 

ISTR a 2012 presidential election debate of Obama vs Romney where Romney answered a question about greatest threat, and he said Russia. To which Obama countered that the Cold War is over man.

Edited by futon
Posted

"on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer."

So, which NATO members have NOT responded to attacks in this area?

Also:  "US defence spending also covers commitments outside the Euro-Atlantic area."

Are you absolutely sure that the US is spending 2% of its GDP to the defence of the NATO area? or are you counting war like Iraq, Afghanistan, operations in the Gulf or the Pacific tilt within that 2%? because that's not to the benefit of NATO.

It's not just Europeans the ones that cut back on spending in NATO, check the US forces actually deployed in Europe when these agreements were made and you will find that the US was very much a junior partner in the actual contribution to NATO defence.

Posted
31 minutes ago, futon said:

Even if just 2% by European countries was maintained since 2010, European readiness to offer assistance may have been quicker and calculative enough to buttress enough deterrance to prevent the 2022 invasion. 

No, because you are assuming that the additional cash would have been invested in capabilities relevant to conventional war. The European militaries between 1995 and 2014 were focused on expeditionary capabilities, so spending more would have meant more airlifters, more amphibious ships and more wheeled dead traps.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...