The Obama Doctrine

[Gun Grape]

You were moaning about some NATO allies not spending 2% so I do not think you can complain Ukraine spending 5%, likely to rise if the economy returns to growth this year. Of course Ukraine has some catching up do though we have fought the Muscovites pretty much to a stand still. We are of course under EU and IMF financial restraints.

Sure I can. Those NATO countries are not at war. Supposedly your country is. A country on a wartime footing, that only spends less than 5% either needs to get serious and increase their defense spending. Or stop asking others to finance their war for them.

Are you suggesting that Ukraine doesn't want democracy and the rule of law?

It doesn't seem that way. Or they want it, they just want someone else to pay for it.

There are no independent units. All are National Guard Units.

Oh so the nazis are part of the military, Not independent nutbags. And you want us to spend money, material and possibly lives for your country? No.

If I was the President, the training Battalion we have in your country teaching your army how to fight would be home on the next plane

[Gun Grape]

I really hate this percentage of GDP stuff. It means absolutely nothing. Bottom line is dollars. Canada's defence budget at 0.9% GDP is $14bil. Ukraine's 5% GDP is $4.4bil. The Ukraine may be buying as much guns as she can but she is nowhere close to be buying enough.

And at 0.9% your military is falling apart.

[Officer of Engineers]

And at 0.9% your military is falling apart.

More from overwork than underfunded. We have been the #2 or #3 deployed army in NATO. The reason why Washington has been kind of quiet about our funding is that we were willing to do with other armies won't - take on the hard work. The top 3 armies that saw the most combat in Afghanistan were the US, British, and Canadian.

Still, it's the RCAF and the RCN's turn at the money trough and there's not enough money being spent for replacements.

[GVChamp]

More from overwork than underfunded.

Uhhh...what's the difference between:
-Overworked (for this level of funding)
-Underfunded (for this level of work)

[snapper]

We are not the vassals of the Ukraine, no responsibilities have been abrogated on our end.

Hmm did anyone say you were? Were you British or German 'vassals' in the 1970s? Yet from all of your expressions of adoration for the Muscovite Mafiosi regime it would appear that you believe you have some right to condemn Ukrainians to Muscovite vassalage and the horrors that is known to bring.

Sure I can. Those NATO countries are not at war. Supposedly your country is. A country on a wartime footing, that only spends less than 5% either needs to get serious and increase their defense spending. Or stop asking others to finance their war for them.

To you financial constraints might mean nothing but Ukraine has given it's word and intends to keep it as not doing so would cause bankruptcy.

It doesn't seem that way. Or they want it, they just want someone else to pay for it.

Ukrainian soldiers pay for it daily and in line with IMF dictates domestic fuel bills have risen around 40% as Government subsidies have been withdrawn.

Oh so the nazis are part of the military, Not independent nutbags. And you want us to spend money, material and possibly lives for your country? No.

Maybe you should compare the 'Nazi' vote of the French Front National with that of all the far right wing Parties in Ukraine which together received less than 2% of the vote. Maybe check who funds Marine Le Pen and her antisemites as well.

If I was the President, the training Battalion we have in your country teaching your army how to fight would be home on the next plane

Probably why you'll never be President as you would then risk forfeiting all the Central European NATO allies. But then perhaps the Oder - Neisse line is acceptable to you or maybe the Atlantic seaboard?

[Officer of Engineers]

Uhhh...what's the difference between:
-Overworked (for this level of funding)
-Underfunded (for this level of work)

You can't get new tanks and planes tomorrow no matter how much money you got. You used what you got and repair men and machine to the best of your abilities. Buying civilian stuff for military use just make it damned more expensive in the long run.

[SteveDaPirate]

Certainly true but then please do not quote spurious BS about supporting democracy or the country wanting democracy as a theme of foreign policy.

$3 billion in FSA assistance to promote political and economic reform and to address humanitarian needs sure sounds like the US has been trying to support democracy in Ukraine. Particularly in light of Ukraine's non-aligned status.

Probably why you'll never be President as you would then risk forfeiting all the Central European NATO allies. But then perhaps the Oder - Neisse line is acceptable to you or maybe the Atlantic seaboard?

The "acceptable" line is the NATO border. That obviously isn't prefered, and the US is providing some diplomatic and background support to Ukraine accordingly. The US has much less of a stake in Central Europe than the Central Europeans themselves however. If the Central European NATO allies thought the Russians would trespass into NATO territory, they would be the first to commit troops to Ukraine as it would be their asses on the line.

[SteveDaPirate]

the end result was still that Assad lost his chems

Not a result of his efforts.

I disagree. Syria giving up her Chems to avoid attack was certainly facilitated by the Russians, but the incident was precipitated by Obama's threat, and the actual destruction of those Chems was carried out by the US and partners. The MV Cape Ray isn't a Russian ship.

[Officer of Engineers]

What other way was there beside Putin? There was a finite time to the bluff and Obama gave Assad no way out but to take the bombing. He surrenders to Obama without a fight and his own tribe would hang him from the nearest tree. An ally came and protected him which allowed Assad a way out but other than that, a brutal dictator has no other option but to go down fighting.

Only thing is we now know that Obama had no intentions of carrying through with his bluff and he went begging to Putin for help.

[SteveDaPirate]

Only thing is we now know that Obama had no intentions of carrying through with his bluff and he went begging to Putin for help.

By having the idea come from the Russians, Assad can play along and give up his Chems without losing face by backing down when confronted by the American threat. The Americans accomplished their goal and removed more Chems than the bombing would have destroyed anyway.

The idea HAD to come from the Russians in order for Assad to save face. The Russians were eager to play along because they get to "save" their ally, and lets them get some time in the international spotlight.

In short everybody wins. Except the people who wanted bombs to fall on Syria for other reasons.

[Officer of Engineers]

Correction, the idea had to come from the Russians in order for Assad to survive. As I said, if he had backed down before Obama, his own tribe would hang him. Assad had no choice but to call Obama's bluff.

And I don't know if everybody won. NATO is no longer bombing any targets in Syria since the Russians put in the S400 there. I'm sure Israel just loved that. All because Putin knew that Obama would not act.

[astralis]

NATO is no longer bombing any targets in Syria since the Russians put in the S400 there.

Operation Inherent Resolve is still ongoing.

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/fea...er_Summary.pdf

[Officer of Engineers]

http://217.218.67.231/Detail/2015/12...-US-Syria-S400

[SteveDaPirate]

Correction, the idea had to come from the Russians in order for Assad to survive.

The US objective was to take the Chems out of the equation, not to remove Assad. The Russians saved Assad from the Syrians by giving him an out, Assad saved himself from the Americans by giving up the Chems.

And I don't know if everybody won. NATO is no longer bombing any targets in Syria since the Russians put in the S400 there. I'm sure Israel just loved that.

And the Russians are pulling out.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...llout-ilsa7fi5

All because Putin knew that Obama would not act.

Here's where we disagree. If Putin knew Obama wouldn't act, he had no reason to offer up Assad's Chems. The fact that he did offer up the Chems is an indication that Putin believed the US was about to blow the hell out of one of his few remaining allies.

If Putin knows Obama is bluffing, why didn't he and Assad just call him on it and keep using Chems willy nilly?

[Officer of Engineers]

Operation Inherent Resolve is still ongoing.

http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/fea...er_Summary.pdf

From your page