All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

But, less we not forget, Putin and Xi are buddies, to the extent Xi wants, triangles in relationships are often a bad thing.....is it really that bad that Trump and Putin are close, when Putin and Xi are as well.

I don't see it at all like that. Xi is fleecing Putin. And both men know it. The LAST thing a smart Chinese leader wants is a unstable Russia on its border. And that's what's heading everyone's way. Putin can't live forever. And what's next could be, and imho likely is...far worse.

In the long haul, there are all sorts of scenarios...but for the next decade and maybe more, the authoritarian alliances are a huge problem for democracies and international economic stability.

[youthathletics]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

But, less we not forget, Putin and Xi are buddies, to the extent Xi wants, triangles in relationships are often a bad thing.....is it really that bad that Trump and Putin are close, when Putin and Xi are as well.

I don't see it at all like that. Xi is fleecing Putin. And both men know it. The LAST thing a smart Chinese leader wants is a unstable Russia on its border. And that's what's heading everyone's way. Putin can't live forever. And what's next could be, and imho likely is...far worse.

I think we may be passing each other…

First we were discussing Russian and NATO/EU military finances and you have been saying Russia is bleeding financially. I argue that Xi can and will likely stipend Russia to meet their needs, in the best interest of Xi.

So Trump staying close to Putin is mandatory, and should not be viewed as some puppet narrative.

[njbill]

Mandatory? Huh? Trump is close to Putin and is his puppet. That is a terrible thing for our country.

Trump has already said Putin can do whatever he wants in Ukraine. He will cut off all aid to Ukraine and allow Putin to overrun the country. You disagree that Trump will do that?

[a fan]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

But, less we not forget, Putin and Xi are buddies, to the extent Xi wants, triangles in relationships are often a bad thing.....is it really that bad that Trump and Putin are close, when Putin and Xi are as well.

I don't see it at all like that. Xi is fleecing Putin. And both men know it. The LAST thing a smart Chinese leader wants is a unstable Russia on its border. And that's what's heading everyone's way. Putin can't live forever. And what's next could be, and imho likely is...far worse.

I think we may be passing each other…

First we were discussing Russian and NATO/EU military finances and you have been saying Russia is bleeding financially. I argue that Xi can and will likely stipend Russia to meet their needs, in the best interest of Xi.

So Trump staying close to Putin is mandatory, and should not be viewed as some puppet narrative.

We are talking past.....I agree 100% with the bold. Spot on.

[a fan]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

But, less we not forget, Putin and Xi are buddies, to the extent Xi wants, triangles in relationships are often a bad thing.....is it really that bad that Trump and Putin are close, when Putin and Xi are as well.

I don't see it at all like that. Xi is fleecing Putin. And both men know it. The LAST thing a smart Chinese leader wants is a unstable Russia on its border. And that's what's heading everyone's way. Putin can't live forever. And what's next could be, and imho likely is...far worse.

In the long haul, there are all sorts of scenarios...but for the next decade and maybe more, the authoritarian alliances are a huge problem for democracies and international economic stability.

That's one way of looking at it.

The other, is that this is the same silliness that made the Soviets fall......isolated fascist economies, and as we all know the economies of China, Russia, N Korea, Iran et. al. are a shadow compared to the free world.

In the end? The fascists are all talk and no game.....they want money and power, and the aforementioned countries don't have it in comparison to the free world.

The ONLY thing that is keep China's engine moving? Their key companies are privately owned. Which means, of course, that they're not a Communist Country. You don't have billionaires in a Communist country, obviously. There is only the State. China, like the Soviet Union, oscillates between a fascist oligarchy, and a fascist dictatorship. They make the rules.....so we have private companies in China because the leader "sez so', and for no other reason.

[MDlaxfan76]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

But, less we not forget, Putin and Xi are buddies, to the extent Xi wants, triangles in relationships are often a bad thing.....is it really that bad that Trump and Putin are close, when Putin and Xi are as well.

I don't see it at all like that. Xi is fleecing Putin. And both men know it. The LAST thing a smart Chinese leader wants is a unstable Russia on its border. And that's what's heading everyone's way. Putin can't live forever. And what's next could be, and imho likely is...far worse.

In the long haul, there are all sorts of scenarios...but for the next decade and maybe more, the authoritarian alliances are a huge problem for democracies and international economic stability.

That's one way of looking at it.

The other, is that this is the same silliness that made the Soviets fall......isolated fascist economies, and as we all know the economies of China, Russia, N Korea, Iran et. al. are a shadow compared to the free world.

In the end? The fascists are all talk and no game.....they want money and power, and the aforementioned countries don't have it in comparison to the free world.

The ONLY thing that is keep China's engine moving? Their key companies are privately owned. Which means, of course, that they're not a Communist Country. You don't have billionaires in a Communist country, obviously. There is only the State. China, like the Soviet Union, oscillates between a fascist oligarchy, and a fascist dictatorship. They make the rules.....so we have private companies in China because the leader "sez so', and for no other reason.

The 'problem' with authoritarians is that when they can't 'win' economically through productivity they resort to conquest. And the ego of a single leader can drive horrific human and economic costs.

[old salt]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

...& just the threat of a 2nd Trump term is prompting them to invest more in their own defense.
Poland is now up > 4% of GDP.

[old salt]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

And Generations at much more dangerous times stood the line, while America's economy boomed as the dominant economic and military superpower.

Our economy won the war, not the military.

But yes, you did your piece of service.

America purposely crafted NATO to remove European military build-up as independent nation states. History had been very brutal with major nation state aggression and the NATO alliance obviated that in Europe. Collectively, with the US as the dominant guarantor. The Soviet threat and the exhaustion of Europe enabled Europe's agreement to forgo their own military build-up. This was particularly on purpose with regard to Germany.

The Europeans are responding with haste, now, to the Russian threat, having grown lax over decades of relative peace and security. And that's good.

But not if America withdraws its guarantee under Article 5 as Trump will do. NATO states will collapse into chaotic nation state competition. And now, so many have a nuclear option...

But as that's such a catastrophic outcome, instead, western Europe will let Russia retake whatever it wants, one nibble at a time. Until it doesn't and then we have nuclear holocaust.

Your fear of European militarism is no longer realistic. The end of the Cold War, dissolution of the USSR, reunification of Germany, expansion of NATO, & (most significantly) creation of the EU, created a new paradigm. Germany & Japan have been thoroughly pacified.

During the Cold War, our European allies contributed a significantly higher % of NATO's combined combat power -- in, over & around continental Europe, than they do now. There's no reason they cannot do so again. If you traveled through W Germany during the Cold War, it was obvious that the entire country was an armed garrison. We need only a fraction of that today, deployed further to the E.

[old salt]

Had this contract been awarded 2 years ago, when the need was first obvious, it still would not be enough, soon enough.

https://www.army.mil/article/277680/arm ... _d1_dbrief

Also today from Defense One :
Russia was reportedly close to sending anti-ship cruise missiles to the Houthis in Yemen, but “Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman intervened” to stop the transfer, U.S. officials allegedly told the Middle East Eye, reporting Friday.

[MDlaxfan76]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

And Generations at much more dangerous times stood the line, while America's economy boomed as the dominant economic and military superpower.

Our economy won the war, not the military.

But yes, you did your piece of service.

America purposely crafted NATO to remove European military build-up as independent nation states. History had been very brutal with major nation state aggression and the NATO alliance obviated that in Europe. Collectively, with the US as the dominant guarantor. The Soviet threat and the exhaustion of Europe enabled Europe's agreement to forgo their own military build-up. This was particularly on purpose with regard to Germany.

The Europeans are responding with haste, now, to the Russian threat, having grown lax over decades of relative peace and security. And that's good.

But not if America withdraws its guarantee under Article 5 as Trump will do. NATO states will collapse into chaotic nation state competition. And now, so many have a nuclear option...

But as that's such a catastrophic outcome, instead, western Europe will let Russia retake whatever it wants, one nibble at a time. Until it doesn't and then we have nuclear holocaust.

Your fear of European militarism is no longer realistic. The end of the Cold War, dissolution of the USSR, reunification of Germany, expansion of NATO, & (most significantly) creation of the EU, created a new paradigm. Germany & Japan have been thoroughly pacified.

During the Cold War, our European allies contributed a significantly higher % of NATO's combined combat power -- in, over & around continental Europe, than they do now. There's no reason they cannot do so again. If you traveled through W Germany during the Cold War, it was obvious that the entire country was an armed garrison. We need only a fraction of that today, deployed further to the E.

Yes, I agree that the paradigm is different today, thankfully.

My point is that paradigm is by American design. We are where we are because we wanted it that way.

Yes, I traveled through W. Germany in 1984. My buddy in the Army JAG corps, Princeton ROTC lacrosse, same class as Milley, and his wife took us around, particularly close to Czechoslovakia. They played a joke, 'took a wrong turn' and there were the watch towers, crossing...

We did see a heavy American presence, not a lot of German military or other military. Younger Germans mostly annoyed when American convoys slowed things down on the autobahn. Still a lot of older Germans who resented the Americans though. WWII era folks.

They were at our house for dinner last Friday and we were talking about their experience there. Wife told a humorous story of when she was doing a documentary film, was in a helicopter and the American pilot asked if she minded if they made a pit stop. Next thing she knew, they were crossing over into Czech territory and set down in a farmer's field, disturbing crops, farmer came out...two pilots ran to the buildings nearby, which were the original Budweiser brewery, returning with several cases. When she asked about the farmer's field and them crossing over, they said "we won the war".

But for most of our trip, we saw very little military away from Eastern border.

Obviously, that border is no longer contiguous to immediate Russian threat.

But the Europeans are indeed scared now like they hadn't been in 3 decades, a full generation of people. They are moving now in response, albeit there's a big far right wing movement that sees Putin's Russia as allies, indeed much of it is Russian funded. And on the left there remain the hard core pacifists, generations of development of anti-war sentiments.

So, I see dissolution of NATO as a reality if the US withdraws, a retreat into nationalistic borders, and among the strongest a return to national military build-up instead of collective alliances. The EU already has major fissures, the wealthier countries propping up the less, the Brits withdrawal.

And they simply don't have the collective economies of scale that we do.

So, American resolve is critical if we are to maintain a collective alliance of democracies around the world.

This matters not just in Europe, but as well in the East, Africa, SA. Especially re China.

And Trump and MAGA are a huge danger.

[MDlaxfan76]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

...& just the threat of a 2nd Trump term is prompting them to invest more in their own defense.
Poland is now up > 4% of GDP.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is prompting them, not Trump.

Of course, they're indeed enormously worried that Trump would indeed turn his back regardless of Poland's efforts at self-defense.

He'll say, 'well, it's their problem, they should have built their own nukes..' or some such excuse. Could anyone blame them if they did now?

My European friends, both American expats and others, are flabbergasted that America could even imagine putting Trump back in office, given all that's gone down. They thought he was an a-hole the first term, but the stakes are so much higher for a second term, they think it's flat crazy that Americans would consider doing it.

[cradleandshoot]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

...& just the threat of a 2nd Trump term is prompting them to invest more in their own defense.
Poland is now up > 4% of GDP.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is prompting them, not Trump.

Of course, they're indeed enormously worried that Trump would indeed turn his back regardless of Poland's efforts at self-defense.

He'll say, 'well, it's their problem, they should have built their own nukes..' or some such excuse. Could anyone blame them if they did now?

My European friends, both American expats and others, are flabbergasted that America could even imagine putting Trump back in office, given all that's gone down. They thought he was an a-hole the first term, but the stakes are so much higher for a second term, they think it's flat crazy that Americans would consider doing it.

Why should any American care what your European friends think about anything? We fought a war way back when to liberate ourselves from European type thinking. My mom begged my father to join her in her trip to Europe. My dads worst memories of his young life came from fighting for his life in France.

[old salt]

Yes, I traveled through W. Germany in 1984. My buddy in the Army JAG corps, Princeton ROTC lacrosse, same class as Milley, and his wife took us around, particularly close to Czechoslovakia. They played a joke, 'took a wrong turn' and there were the watch towers, crossing...

We did see a heavy American presence, not a lot of German military or other military. Younger Germans mostly annoyed when American convoys slowed things down on the autobahn. Still a lot of older Germans who resented the Americans though. WWII era folks.

But for most of our trip, we saw very little military away from Eastern border.

But the Europeans are indeed scared now like they hadn't been in 3 decades, a full generation of people. They are moving now in response, albeit there's a big far right wing movement that sees Putin's Russia as allies, indeed much of it is Russian funded. And on the left there remain the hard core pacifists, generations of development of anti-war sentiments.

So, I see dissolution of NATO as a reality if the US withdraws, a retreat into nationalistic borders, and among the strongest a return to national military build-up instead of collective alliances. The EU already has major fissures, the wealthier countries propping up the less, the Brits withdrawal.

And they simply don't have the collective economies of scale that we do.

So, American resolve is critical if we are to maintain a collective alliance of democracies around the world.

This matters not just in Europe, but as well in the East, Africa, SA. Especially re China.

And Trump and MAGA are a huge danger.

You didn't see more Germans (& Brits + Canadians) because you were in the US sector.
Had you gone N, you'd have seen more German & other allies' military presence.
You apparently did not visit the numerous USAF bases further W.

In the unlikely event that NATO dissolves, it's NATO members will remain in & bolster the Defense Forces of the EU, under their CSDP, already in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_f ... pean_Union

[MDlaxfan76]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

...& just the threat of a 2nd Trump term is prompting them to invest more in their own defense.
Poland is now up > 4% of GDP.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine is prompting them, not Trump.

Of course, they're indeed enormously worried that Trump would indeed turn his back regardless of Poland's efforts at self-defense.

He'll say, 'well, it's their problem, they should have built their own nukes..' or some such excuse. Could anyone blame them if they did now?

My European friends, both American expats and others, are flabbergasted that America could even imagine putting Trump back in office, given all that's gone down. They thought he was an a-hole the first term, but the stakes are so much higher for a second term, they think it's flat crazy that Americans would consider doing it.

Why should any American care what your European friends think about anything? We fought a war way back when to liberate ourselves from European type thinking. My mom begged my father to join her in her trip to Europe. My dads worst memories of his young life came from fighting for his life in France.

Gotta say that's a pretty nonsensical response. The Europeans are by and large our allies, democracies, in a dangerous world in which there are definite adversaries, authoritarians and despots.

It's a big world, cradle, outside of Upstate NY. And it's good to have allies.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, I traveled through W. Germany in 1984. My buddy in the Army JAG corps, Princeton ROTC lacrosse, same class as Milley, and his wife took us around, particularly close to Czechoslovakia. They played a joke, 'took a wrong turn' and there were the watch towers, crossing...

We did see a heavy American presence, not a lot of German military or other military. Younger Germans mostly annoyed when American convoys slowed things down on the autobahn. Still a lot of older Germans who resented the Americans though. WWII era folks.

But for most of our trip, we saw very little military away from Eastern border.

But the Europeans are indeed scared now like they hadn't been in 3 decades, a full generation of people. They are moving now in response, albeit there's a big far right wing movement that sees Putin's Russia as allies, indeed much of it is Russian funded. And on the left there remain the hard core pacifists, generations of development of anti-war sentiments.

So, I see dissolution of NATO as a reality if the US withdraws, a retreat into nationalistic borders, and among the strongest a return to national military build-up instead of collective alliances. The EU already has major fissures, the wealthier countries propping up the less, the Brits withdrawal.

And they simply don't have the collective economies of scale that we do.

So, American resolve is critical if we are to maintain a collective alliance of democracies around the world.

This matters not just in Europe, but as well in the East, Africa, SA. Especially re China.

And Trump and MAGA are a huge danger.

You didn't see more Germans (& Brits + Canadians) because you were in the US sector.
Had you gone N, you'd have seen more German & other allies' military presence.
You apparently did not visit the numerous USAF bases further W.

In the unlikely event that NATO dissolves, it's NATO members will remain in & bolster the Defense Forces of the EU, under their CSDP, already in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_f ... pean_Union

We traveled from Sweden to Denmark to Germany. So, yes, through the north, GDR not far away. But yes, no bases in north.

I don't recall which base they were on, but close to Czechoslovakia, so south. We traveled to the Black Forest from there, then on to Switzerland, then Italy, up to and through France, and across to England. Started 11 weeks with 2 weeks in Greece with my wife's HBS buddies post graduation, including 10 days bareboating in Greek islands by sail. Flew from Athens to Sweden to pick up a Volvo, which we later shipped back to States. Most of the time never fully sure where we'd be a night out...we've been back many times, but that was a very footloose trip before getting back to jobs post grad school, having fully blown our savings. But dollar was super strong that year, so a great time to be abroad on the cheap. Had to learn to relax about no firm plans, go with the adventure of it. Hoping to do much the same next summer, though maybe with a bit more planning.

[old salt]

Yes, I traveled through W. Germany in 1984. My buddy in the Army JAG corps, Princeton ROTC lacrosse, same class as Milley, and his wife took us around, particularly close to Czechoslovakia. They played a joke, 'took a wrong turn' and there were the watch towers, crossing...

We did see a heavy American presence, not a lot of German military or other military. Younger Germans mostly annoyed when American convoys slowed things down on the autobahn. Still a lot of older Germans who resented the Americans though. WWII era folks.

But for most of our trip, we saw very little military away from Eastern border.

But the Europeans are indeed scared now like they hadn't been in 3 decades, a full generation of people. They are moving now in response, albeit there's a big far right wing movement that sees Putin's Russia as allies, indeed much of it is Russian funded. And on the left there remain the hard core pacifists, generations of development of anti-war sentiments.

So, I see dissolution of NATO as a reality if the US withdraws, a retreat into nationalistic borders, and among the strongest a return to national military build-up instead of collective alliances. The EU already has major fissures, the wealthier countries propping up the less, the Brits withdrawal.

And they simply don't have the collective economies of scale that we do.

So, American resolve is critical if we are to maintain a collective alliance of democracies around the world.

This matters not just in Europe, but as well in the East, Africa, SA. Especially re China.

And Trump and MAGA are a huge danger.

You didn't see more Germans (& Brits + Canadians) because you were in the US sector.
Had you gone N, you'd have seen more German & other allies' military presence.
You apparently did not visit the numerous USAF bases further W.

In the unlikely event that NATO dissolves, it's NATO members will remain in & bolster the Defense Forces of the EU, under their CSDP, already in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_f ... pean_Union

We traveled from Sweden to Denmark to Germany. So, yes, through the north, GDR not far away. But yes, no bases in north.

No US bases in the N, but several NATO ally bases N of the US sector. You may not have been aware of them or had access.

https://www.aacvr-germany.org/us-milita ... in-germany

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... s-ukraine/

Even without the USA, Nato would still win in a fight
The numbers don’t lie. But would Nato have the endurance to win in the long run?

by GEORGE ALLISON, 26 March 2024

The commanding officer of the King's Royal Hussars is cheered by his battlegroup on completion of winter exercises in Estonia.
Russia cannot match the military power of Nato, even without the USA

As Nato approaches its 75th anniversary and the prospect of Trump returning to the White House intensifies, discussions are focused on Nato without the United States.

Could Europe cope? Amid whispers of American withdrawal, questions have arisen about the Alliance’s ability to counter threats, especially from Russia.

At first glance, the answer seems straightforward. The collective military capability of Nato members, even without the US, is formidable – dwarfing Ukraine’s 2022 resources that successfully stalled the Russian advance and knocked it back on most fronts.

Facing Russia in 2022, Ukraine’s armed forces, armed with older Soviet-era military hardware, had approximately 850 to 1,000 main battle tanks such as the T-64, T-72, and T-80 models. There were some hundreds of artillery pieces and fewer than 100 operational combat jets. Nonetheless Ukraine’s small forces, stiffened with initially small numbers of advanced Western weapons, were able to throw Russian forces back in most areas and reduced their progress to a grinding crawl in the southeast.

Russia, boasting a mind-bogglingly huge military arsenal with up to 13,000 tanks and over a thousand fighter jets, demonstrated severe weaknesses. These included logistical challenges and massive hardware losses. If Russia couldn’t push Ukraine over, its chance of success against the much bigger and more sophisticated armies of Nato – even without the US – would seem slim.

For the collective military capability of European Nato members is, indeed, vastly superior to what Ukraine had available in 2022. Equipment includes thousands of main battle tanks, including modern models like the Leopard 2, Leclerc, and Challenger 2, and an impressive array of advanced jet fighters such as Eurofighter Typhoons, Dassault Rafales, and SAAB Gripens, European Nato countries possess a significant armoured and aerial advantage over Russia. European nations also possess some advanced US weapons, including limited numbers of F-35 fifth generation fighters and advanced long range precision weapons such as the M57 ATACMS ballistic missile, already in Poland’s armoury, and Britain’s Tomahawk cruise missiles.

In terms of sheer troop numbers, Nato members excluding the United States boast over 1.5 million active military personnel, contrasting Russia’s approximately 1 million active-duty soldiers. While on paper, this suggests a numerical advantage for Nato, the true strength of the Alliance lies beyond headcounts. It’s more complex than that.

The technological sophistication and interoperability of Nato forces significantly amplify their combat effectiveness. European Nato members have invested heavily in next-generation aircraft, precision-guided munitions, state-of-the-art electronic warfare systems, and cyber defence capabilities. These technologies enable Nato forces to conduct highly effective combined operations across vast distances, something Russia cannot do. The conflict in Ukraine has underscored the limitations of relying on numerical superiority alone. Despite their numbers, Russian forces have struggled against technologically sophisticated Ukrainian defences. This has highlighted the importance of modern armed forces doctrines prioritising mobility, flexibility, and precision over sheer force.

Even without the US, Nato’s strength resides in its ability to leverage cutting-edge technology and integrated command structures to conduct operations adaptable to the battlefield’s rapidly changing circumstances.

In contrast to Russia, the most critical area in which Nato excels is combined arms operations. Such operations involve using different military branches (infantry, armour, artillery, aviation, and naval forces) to achieve a shared objective. This approach maximises the strengths and mitigates the weaknesses of different unit types, creating a force far more effective than the sum of its parts.

This joined-up thinking contrasts with the Russian military in Ukraine, which has revealed a reliance on outdated Soviet-era tactics, in short, throwing men at a location to hold it without allowing objectives to evolve or change. Despite its size and firepower, Russia has struggled to integrate its forces effectively in Ukraine, its air forces often failing to support its ground forces in any meaningful way. Given Ukraine’s utilisation of Western tactics against Russia and the advanced capabilities of Nato members that taught Ukraine those tactics, it’s unlikely that the Russian military could realistically challenge a fully mobilised Nato force without encountering significant difficulties, even if that force didn’t include the United States.

Yet, despite these strengths, a Nato without the United States would suffer significant operational handicaps. As things stand today, the Alliance heavily relies on the United States for crucial capabilities such as operational intelligence, air-to-air refuelling, missile defence and more. The absence of these “American enablers” would expose gaps in Nato’s defence architecture, challenging its ability to sustain a fight in the long term. For all the tanks and troops available to Nato in Europe, members still need to be able to move those forces around the continent effectively.

Moreover, the strategic significance of the US nuclear umbrella cannot be overstated. Without it, Europe’s nuclear deterrence relies on Britain and France’s strategic systems, which, while capable, do not match the comprehensive coverage provided by American forces and might be considered by Putin to be unable to inflict disabling damage on Russia.

Yes, a European Nato could likely defeat a Russian attack on day one, but what about day one hundred?

Europe must bolster its military capabilities and invest in areas currently underpinned by American support. Simultaneously, diplomatic efforts will be crucial to maintaining unity and a shared commitment among Nato members, as the Alliance’s strength lies not in numbers but primarily in its collective resolve. Having a vast fleet of tanks, planes and ships as a deterrent means very little if everyone knows you won’t use them or that you’ll only use them sometimes.

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, I traveled through W. Germany in 1984. My buddy in the Army JAG corps, Princeton ROTC lacrosse, same class as Milley, and his wife took us around, particularly close to Czechoslovakia. They played a joke, 'took a wrong turn' and there were the watch towers, crossing...

We did see a heavy American presence, not a lot of German military or other military. Younger Germans mostly annoyed when American convoys slowed things down on the autobahn. Still a lot of older Germans who resented the Americans though. WWII era folks.

But for most of our trip, we saw very little military away from Eastern border.

But the Europeans are indeed scared now like they hadn't been in 3 decades, a full generation of people. They are moving now in response, albeit there's a big far right wing movement that sees Putin's Russia as allies, indeed much of it is Russian funded. And on the left there remain the hard core pacifists, generations of development of anti-war sentiments.

So, I see dissolution of NATO as a reality if the US withdraws, a retreat into nationalistic borders, and among the strongest a return to national military build-up instead of collective alliances. The EU already has major fissures, the wealthier countries propping up the less, the Brits withdrawal.

And they simply don't have the collective economies of scale that we do.

So, American resolve is critical if we are to maintain a collective alliance of democracies around the world.

This matters not just in Europe, but as well in the East, Africa, SA. Especially re China.

And Trump and MAGA are a huge danger.

You didn't see more Germans (& Brits + Canadians) because you were in the US sector.
Had you gone N, you'd have seen more German & other allies' military presence.
You apparently did not visit the numerous USAF bases further W.

In the unlikely event that NATO dissolves, it's NATO members will remain in & bolster the Defense Forces of the EU, under their CSDP, already in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_f ... pean_Union

We traveled from Sweden to Denmark to Germany. So, yes, through the north, GDR not far away. But yes, no bases in north.

No US bases in the N, but several NATO ally bases N of the US sector. You may not have been aware of them or had access.

https://www.aacvr-germany.org/us-milita ... in-germany

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/0 ... s-ukraine/

Even without the USA, Nato would still win in a fight
The numbers don’t lie. But would Nato have the endurance to win in the long run?

by GEORGE ALLISON, 26 March 2024

The commanding officer of the King's Royal Hussars is cheered by his battlegroup on completion of winter exercises in Estonia.
Russia cannot match the military power of Nato, even without the USA

As Nato approaches its 75th anniversary and the prospect of Trump returning to the White House intensifies, discussions are focused on Nato without the United States.

Could Europe cope? Amid whispers of American withdrawal, questions have arisen about the Alliance’s ability to counter threats, especially from Russia.

At first glance, the answer seems straightforward. The collective military capability of Nato members, even without the US, is formidable – dwarfing Ukraine’s 2022 resources that successfully stalled the Russian advance and knocked it back on most fronts.

Facing Russia in 2022, Ukraine’s armed forces, armed with older Soviet-era military hardware, had approximately 850 to 1,000 main battle tanks such as the T-64, T-72, and T-80 models. There were some hundreds of artillery pieces and fewer than 100 operational combat jets. Nonetheless Ukraine’s small forces, stiffened with initially small numbers of advanced Western weapons, were able to throw Russian forces back in most areas and reduced their progress to a grinding crawl in the southeast.

Russia, boasting a mind-bogglingly huge military arsenal with up to 13,000 tanks and over a thousand fighter jets, demonstrated severe weaknesses. These included logistical challenges and massive hardware losses. If Russia couldn’t push Ukraine over, its chance of success against the much bigger and more sophisticated armies of Nato – even without the US – would seem slim.

For the collective military capability of European Nato members is, indeed, vastly superior to what Ukraine had available in 2022. Equipment includes thousands of main battle tanks, including modern models like the Leopard 2, Leclerc, and Challenger 2, and an impressive array of advanced jet fighters such as Eurofighter Typhoons, Dassault Rafales, and SAAB Gripens, European Nato countries possess a significant armoured and aerial advantage over Russia. European nations also possess some advanced US weapons, including limited numbers of F-35 fifth generation fighters and advanced long range precision weapons such as the M57 ATACMS ballistic missile, already in Poland’s armoury, and Britain’s Tomahawk cruise missiles.

In terms of sheer troop numbers, Nato members excluding the United States boast over 1.5 million active military personnel, contrasting Russia’s approximately 1 million active-duty soldiers. While on paper, this suggests a numerical advantage for Nato, the true strength of the Alliance lies beyond headcounts. It’s more complex than that.

The technological sophistication and interoperability of Nato forces significantly amplify their combat effectiveness. European Nato members have invested heavily in next-generation aircraft, precision-guided munitions, state-of-the-art electronic warfare systems, and cyber defence capabilities. These technologies enable Nato forces to conduct highly effective combined operations across vast distances, something Russia cannot do. The conflict in Ukraine has underscored the limitations of relying on numerical superiority alone. Despite their numbers, Russian forces have struggled against technologically sophisticated Ukrainian defences. This has highlighted the importance of modern armed forces doctrines prioritising mobility, flexibility, and precision over sheer force.

Even without the US, Nato’s strength resides in its ability to leverage cutting-edge technology and integrated command structures to conduct operations adaptable to the battlefield’s rapidly changing circumstances.

In contrast to Russia, the most critical area in which Nato excels is combined arms operations. Such operations involve using different military branches (infantry, armour, artillery, aviation, and naval forces) to achieve a shared objective. This approach maximises the strengths and mitigates the weaknesses of different unit types, creating a force far more effective than the sum of its parts.

This joined-up thinking contrasts with the Russian military in Ukraine, which has revealed a reliance on outdated Soviet-era tactics, in short, throwing men at a location to hold it without allowing objectives to evolve or change. Despite its size and firepower, Russia has struggled to integrate its forces effectively in Ukraine, its air forces often failing to support its ground forces in any meaningful way. Given Ukraine’s utilisation of Western tactics against Russia and the advanced capabilities of Nato members that taught Ukraine those tactics, it’s unlikely that the Russian military could realistically challenge a fully mobilised Nato force without encountering significant difficulties, even if that force didn’t include the United States.

Yet, despite these strengths, a Nato without the United States would suffer significant operational handicaps. As things stand today, the Alliance heavily relies on the United States for crucial capabilities such as operational intelligence, air-to-air refuelling, missile defence and more. The absence of these “American enablers” would expose gaps in Nato’s defence architecture, challenging its ability to sustain a fight in the long term. For all the tanks and troops available to Nato in Europe, members still need to be able to move those forces around the continent effectively.

Moreover, the strategic significance of the US nuclear umbrella cannot be overstated. Without it, Europe’s nuclear deterrence relies on Britain and France’s strategic systems, which, while capable, do not match the comprehensive coverage provided by American forces and might be considered by Putin to be unable to inflict disabling damage on Russia.

Yes, a European Nato could likely defeat a Russian attack on day one, but what about day one hundred?

Europe must bolster its military capabilities and invest in areas currently underpinned by American support. Simultaneously, diplomatic efforts will be crucial to maintaining unity and a shared commitment among Nato members, as the Alliance’s strength lies not in numbers but primarily in its collective resolve. Having a vast fleet of tanks, planes and ships as a deterrent means very little if everyone knows you won’t use them or that you’ll only use them sometimes.

I'm not disputing your assessment that there was lots of other allied nation's military presence on the border with Soviet states and vassals. Still are, just moved eastward.

The article you posted is interesting...as the author concludes, NATO without the Us may be sufficient on day one, but day one hundred...

[jhu72]

Putin is just saber rattling. Do you want him to overrun Eastern Europe, then Germany, then France, then invade England? That’s what he wants to do. Standing up to him is the right thing to do. Not to mention required by our NATO treaty obligations (if he invades a NATO country).

Fantasty scaremongering. Putin is bogged down in Ukraine. He can't even keep his troops on his own border supplied.

Well, that is what Putin wants to do and will do if he could find a way to pull it off. How many times has he said he wants to reconstitute the old Soviet empire, which includes hegemony over the old Soviet bloc states? Zero chance he'd stop there.

At the beginning of the war, people were saying he'd be in Kiev in a couple of days. That is certainly what Putin intended. As things have turned out -- with huge help from the West -- Ukraine has been able to fend him off for now. But Putin is in this for the long game. He is hoping the West will grow tired (politically, financially, and militarily) of supporting Ukraine. He is hoping his puppet Trump will win the election so that he can continue his aggression in Ukraine just as he was doing under Trump. Trump, the liar, of course ignores the fact that Putin was fighting and seeking to gain ground in eastern Ukraine during the entire Trump presidency. Trump has already publicly said he'll let Putin do whatever he wants. Trump wants to pull the US out of NATO. He has said he won't honor Article 5. He won't come to the aid of any NATO ally if Russia attacks.

Scaremongering? More like a sober assessment of what Putin intends and what Trump would allow.

There's a difference between getting all of Ukraine, and invading a NATO country.

The first is clearly possible.

The second? Not a chance.

Not under Biden, but definitely possible under Trump. Trump will not honor our treaty obligations and, in fact, will pull the country out of NATO if Putin tells him to do so, which he will.

njbill,

Interesting, seems you have been spending a lot of time on Trump's campaign stuff. Didn't know you were privy on what he plans to do should he return to office. Focus on what does if he gets into office again, NOT what he says. Unless this is your way of reverse appealing to posters on this forum to not vote for Trump?

Joe

Joe, a heck of a lot of us actually believe what Trump says. What he winks and nods about, while then denying what he said. And we don't think the institutional guard rails will be in place in 2025, unlike the frictions he faced in 2017.

And a whole lot of us understand that Trump has no friggin' clue about history or world affairs, rather he's attracted solely to power and money and self-aggrandizement.

So, yeah, don't vote for Trump.

... certainly the most prudent approach to Orange Duce.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Putin is just saber rattling. Do you want him to overrun Eastern Europe, then Germany, then France, then invade England? That’s what he wants to do. Standing up to him is the right thing to do. Not to mention required by our NATO treaty obligations (if he invades a NATO country).

Fantasty scaremongering. Putin is bogged down in Ukraine. He can't even keep his troops on his own border supplied.

Well, that is what Putin wants to do and will do if he could find a way to pull it off. How many times has he said he wants to reconstitute the old Soviet empire, which includes hegemony over the old Soviet bloc states? Zero chance he'd stop there.

At the beginning of the war, people were saying he'd be in Kiev in a couple of days. That is certainly what Putin intended. As things have turned out -- with huge help from the West -- Ukraine has been able to fend him off for now. But Putin is in this for the long game. He is hoping the West will grow tired (politically, financially, and militarily) of supporting Ukraine. He is hoping his puppet Trump will win the election so that he can continue his aggression in Ukraine just as he was doing under Trump. Trump, the liar, of course ignores the fact that Putin was fighting and seeking to gain ground in eastern Ukraine during the entire Trump presidency. Trump has already publicly said he'll let Putin do whatever he wants. Trump wants to pull the US out of NATO. He has said he won't honor Article 5. He won't come to the aid of any NATO ally if Russia attacks.

Scaremongering? More like a sober assessment of what Putin intends and what Trump would allow.

There's a difference between getting all of Ukraine, and invading a NATO country.

The first is clearly possible.

The second? Not a chance.

Not under Biden, but definitely possible under Trump. Trump will not honor our treaty obligations and, in fact, will pull the country out of NATO if Putin tells him to do so, which he will.

njbill,

Interesting, seems you have been spending a lot of time on Trump's campaign stuff. Didn't know you were privy on what he plans to do should he return to office. Focus on what does if he gets into office again, NOT what he says. Unless this is your way of reverse appealing to posters on this forum to not vote for Trump?

Joe

Joe, a heck of a lot of us actually believe what Trump says. What he winks and nods about, while then denying what he said. And we don't think the institutional guard rails will be in place in 2025, unlike the frictions he faced in 2017.

And a whole lot of us understand that Trump has no friggin' clue about history or world affairs, rather he's attracted solely to power and money and self-aggrandizement.

So, yeah, don't vote for Trump.

... certainly the most prudent approach to Orange Duce.

He has Joe’s vote. He has another guy’s vote also because votes don’t matter in his State.

[jhu72]

Got it. The threat from Russia is so great that it's too politically fraught for the EUros to defend themselves, so we have to do it for them.

Yeah, all that effort to make America the dominant superpower of democracy was a waste of time, effort, blood and treasure. F-Europe, F-democracy, F-world. You wasted your time and effort.

Yes, the Europeans are incapable of defending themselves against a superpower...and that's been by American design.

No I didn't, I helped win the Cold War & I celebrated it on a NATO base with my NATO allies.

Our EUro allies did it once. They can do it again. Don't enable their fecklessness & give them an easy way out.

Actually, at this point, as big of a piece of cr*p as the Russian army is?

NATO could beat Russia without the US, if the EU CHOSE to spend a reasonable amount on their militaries. And it's not a close call....EU's GDP dwarfs Russias.

The EU already spends 3x Russia does on defense/military spending. And that's continuing to go up a LOT with the current state of affairs. I'm all for them spending more as well as backing them up.

+1

And this is all Old Salt is saying....the EU needs to pay its fair share.

...& just the threat of a 2nd Trump term is prompting them to invest more in their own defense.
Poland is now up > 4% of GDP.