2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

[rj1]

Libya was really an EU task...however NATO had a vested interest in the migrant surge impacted the southern NATO countries.

I disagree on the vested interest (are European NATO troops ever going to deploy to southern Texas or Arizona? the answer to that is no, even if we asked), part of being a sovereign country is you are responsible for taking care of your borders. Obama committed us to a conflict that was about a mirror image of what he criticized his predecessor for, and the Italians and French were even in it for oil. And the EU with Libya could not agree to do anything, Italy and France were on completely opposite pages in that ordeal. Yet NATO could agree....after the U.S. got involved. That does not strike confidence in our partners. There's a lot of shared membership with EU and NATO. So how is Macron's independent EU defense policy he's pushing for going to play out in this present climate? EU military policy is politely stated as whatever - you have states in the western part that don't want to invest and you have states in the eastern part that think it's worthless and much rather want NATO defending them, which tells you what they think of NATO military capability outside of the U.S. Macron's push strikes me as dead on arrival.

Do you agree or disagree that overall non-American military capabilties of NATO have decreased the last 30 years, while adding 14 more countries to defend? Meanwhile the Russian military are a much more capable force than what they were 15 years ago due to being battle-hardened from conflicts and undertaking massive reforms of their military structure.

[Albany Rifles]

I agree we should have not been involved directly in Libya...but there were many in the defense establishment that the US owed NATO for coming to our assistance post 9/11...both in A'stan and in Europe. I was in Europe in the fall winter 01/02 and there were Bundeswehr guards on all installations and Luftwaffe aircraft on patrol in the air. I saw more overt preparation and coverage than I did during the Bader-Meinhof/Red Army Faction terrorist threat when I was stationed there in 81-84. Many felt we owed it to those allies for sticking with us in A'stan...many of whom helped take up the slack there when we basically turned our backs and went into Iraq.


Not arguing that there has been a drop off in capability. In some circumstances it's because of having to offset other costs such as Germany. For others it has been a drop off in perceived need. Pretty much the most capable militaries now, other than France, are further to the East.

And as Russia is based on a conscription army still I am not so sure about the battle-hardened part. They may senior officers who are experienced...but so does NATO.

As for NATO troops on the Texas border...well , since that is not a military situation I seriously doubt it. But that is a discussion for another thread.

[rj1]

I agree we should have not been involved directly in Libya...but there were many in the defense establishment that the US owed NATO for coming to our assistance post 9/11...both in A'stan and in Europe. I was in Europe in the fall winter 01/02 and there were Bundeswehr guards on all installations and Luftwaffe aircraft on patrol in the air. I saw more overt preparation and coverage than I did during the Bader-Meinhof/Red Army Faction terrorist threat when I was stationed there in 81-84. Many felt we owed it to those allies for sticking with us in A'stan...many of whom helped take up the slack there when we basically turned our backs and went into Iraq.

Per OoE at the time, they insulted Canada because they wanted ISAF to be EU-only to show they could do it, performed horribly, and had to beg the Turks to take control in the end realizing they were over their head.

Not arguing that there has been a drop off in capability. In some circumstances it's because of having to offset other costs such as Germany. For others it has been a drop off in perceived need. Pretty much the most capable militaries now, other than France, are further to the East.

Okay, yes, Germany had offset costs. They are still the richest country in the EU. There's no reason a comparatively poorer country in Poland is better prepared than them. Everyone knows von der Leyen failed upward into the EU Commission President role because Merkel wanted to get rid of her following what she did with the German defense ministry.

And as Russia is based on a conscription army still I am not so sure about the battle-hardened part.

It's 2/3rds professional now I read recently. A bureaucrat in the Duma you've never heard of was charged by Putin with carrying out massive reforms post-2008 and did them, clearing out a lot of the high-ranking officer dead weight and making the military structure more flexible. Meanwhile the defense alliance whose first priority is defense against Russia by definition has dropped off in capability outside of the U.S. as you have agreed with while increasing the amount of territory it has to defend with states that are giving to the alliance less than their defense would require.

In short: NATO is in a perilous state. Post-1991 it was foreseen it would probably never enter a real conflict where the opponent was a capable non-guerilla military and shoots back according to most of its pre-fall of communism members I bet if you stuck their foreign policy groups in a room and forced them to answer the question. It explains the German reaction to me for not only this crisis but also the Georgian War of 2008 and Crimea 2014 - they know if they ever get in a guns-shooting NATO-wide conflict their military is f#cked, so their only option is to calm tensions and give Russia space on its western frontier. This crisis now is really pushing those states into a corner they don't want to be in because regardless of what ends up happening here, NATO conflict with Russia is less the abstract theoretical and a lot more plausible, and that's an existential crisis for some Western and Central European NATO countries that have made military commitments to defend the likes of Lithuania against Russian invasion when their risk assessment of a potential Russian invasion of Lithuania was much less than it is now. And if the U.S. steps up and let's these members not contribute much of material value because they are ill-prepared and does all the dirty work for them (like happened with Libya), I could not think of a better way to prove former President Trump who I hate right.

[Firestorm]

if they checked all the boxes, they wouldn't need us. They should not need us now. But if they do check all the boxes, they would be a military and economic powerhouse and a net contributor, not a net detriment to any alliance. The fact that Gen Miley accessed that Kiev is only a 72 hour Russian march screams at the Ukrainian incompetence. Russia should run out bombs long before the road to Kiev runs out of bunkers. Ain't going to be the case.

With over 5 years since the DNR/LNR debacle and one year since the last scare, Kiev has done squat all to make Russia think twice.

I don't get this. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were not military and economic powerhouses when they joined NATO. They joined because they wanted NATO protection in case the Russians decided they wanted them back. None of them can stop the Russian army in its tracks by themselves without help any more than Ukraine. Otherwise they wouldn't need you according to your own argument.

[DOR]

A policy quiz for Republicans.



1. If Russia invades the Ukraine, would you support a US-led NATO military response?

1 a. If a US-led NATO military response results in US causalities, will you blame President Biden?


2. If Russia invades the Ukraine, would you support economic sanctions?

2 a. If the economic sanctions lead to oil prices above US$100 a barrel, will you blame President Biden?


3. If Russia invades the Ukraine, would you oppose any US / NATO response against the former guy's good friend Vladimir Putin?

3 a. Are you up for reelection in 2022, and threatened with a primary challenger from the far right?

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't get this. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were not military and economic powerhouses when they joined NATO. They joined because they wanted NATO protection in case the Russians decided they wanted them back. None of them can stop the Russian army in its tracks by themselves without help any more than Ukraine. Otherwise they wouldn't need you according to your own argument.

That was a mistake that almost everyone in uniform saw coming but NATO membership was then more of a political decision than a military one. Frankly, once they signed on the dotted line, everyone in uniform knew we fucked up but our political masters thought they knew better.

[Albany Rifles]

That was a mistake that almost everyone in uniform saw coming but NATO membership was then more of a political decision than a military one. Frankly, once they signed on the dotted line, everyone in uniform knew we fucked up but our political masters thought they knew better.

BINGO...Colonel, you win the kewpie doll.

Joining NATO is a distinct political act. It involves signing a treaty, which is another political act and also locks in a part of a country's foreign policy.

And whether it was a good idea to allow the Baltics in...I am willing to allow anyone who has had their freedoms stripped by empires to join NATO. The very possibility of having 30 nations joined against a bad actor can be a brake on adventurism.

[Officer of Engineers]

I disagree on the vested interest (are European NATO troops ever going to deploy to southern Texas or Arizona? the answer to that is no, even if we asked), part of being a sovereign country is you are responsible for taking care of your borders.

NATO planes doing exercises in Canada assumed duty stations right after 11 Sept with direct lines to the White House and the Prime Minister's Office in Ottawa, waiting for orders to shoot down airliners if need be. Canadian planes patrolled American skies and vice versa. NATO AWACS flew from Europe to North America within 2 days. Ironically, the only member to receive NATO military help was the US. No, the Americans did not need our help but we were there to help regardless.

Do you agree or disagree that overall non-American military capabilties of NATO have decreased the last 30 years, while adding 14 more countries to defend? Meanwhile the Russian military are a much more capable force than what they were 15 years ago due to being battle-hardened from conflicts and undertaking massive reforms of their military structure.

The Russians are not our equals. The Bundeswehr alone has no fear of the Russian Army. The Russian Army is only now adopting doctrines that we've developed over 60 years ago. They are now battalion centric. We are now corps centric. The Russians cannot do corps level operations like Kuwait nor Iraq.

The only NATO members under threat are the Baltic States and that's because of geography. The only defence we can mount there is a pyrrhic one. The Russians will win in the Baltics but would cost them any hope of repelling NATO counter-attacks anywhere else. Other than that, there's not one NATO member that fears a Russian onslaught.

[TopHatter]

NATO planes doing exercises in Canada assumed duty stations right after 11 Sept with direct lines to the White House and the Prime Minister's Office in Ottawa, waiting for orders to shoot down airliners if need be. Canadian planes patrolled American skies and vice versa. NATO AWACS flew from Europe to North America within 2 days. Ironically, the only member to receive NATO military help was the US. No, the Americans did not need our help but we were there to help regardless.

But Sir that's not even close to the same thing as European NATO ground forces deploying to the United States to defend against an invasion from Mexico.

On the other hand, deploying to our northern border to prevent a Canadian incursion...

[Officer of Engineers]

On the other hand, deploying to our northern border to prevent a Canadian incursion...

Isn't that a bit too late? SWSNBN is staying in the US and that is that.

[Officer of Engineers]

A policy quiz for Republicans.



1. If Russia invades the Ukraine, would you support a US-led NATO military response?

1 a. If a US-led NATO military response results in US causalities, will you blame President Biden?

Did you actually think this through? Who the hell would care? You're talking WWIII.

[Firestorm]

I guess we need a new version of Godwin's law. Everything eventually devolves into a Republican vs Democrat fight.

[Firestorm]

And whether it was a good idea to allow the Baltics in...I am willing to allow anyone who has had their freedoms stripped by empires to join NATO. The very possibility of having 30 nations joined against a bad actor can be a brake on adventurism.

But this policy has contributed to making the Russians more belligerent in their own neighborhood. They are shit scared of NATO on their doorstep. Russia may be weak but backing them into a corner may not exactly be a great strategy. And it is not NATO countries who will suffer the unintended consequences but countries like Ukraine.

[rj1]

NATO planes doing exercises in Canada assumed duty stations right after 11 Sept with direct lines to the White House and the Prime Minister's Office in Ottawa, waiting for orders to shoot down airliners if need be. Canadian planes patrolled American skies and vice versa. NATO AWACS flew from Europe to North America within 2 days. Ironically, the only member to receive NATO military help was the US. No, the Americans did not need our help but we were there to help regardless.

It's appreciated. Really. I do like Canada, I follow your politics a good bit.

For what the French said about Iraq it was very hypocritical of them to ask our help in Libya, and worse of Obama that he was manipulated into doing the exact same thing he ran against his predecessor for doing. Honestly it was not a month or two later there were Europeans out there criticizing us of warmongering in Libya.

Sarkozy could have been nice and formally acknowledged French hypocrisy comparing their rhetoric of 2002 to 2011, apologize. It's not possible to be anti-U.S. invasion of Iraq overthrowing Saddam and to be pro-U.S. attack of Libya overthrowing Ghaddafi and remain ideologically consistent. But no, every problem in the world is America's fault. Until we need their help, then once we have their help go back to every problem in the world is America's fault, because that plays well with the masses. I'm half-expecting the Ukrainians to blame the U.S. if this thing goes pear-shaped and a lot of people die and they lose territory.

The Russians are not our equals. The Bundeswehr alone has no fear of the Russian Army. The Russian Army is only now adopting doctrines that we've developed over 60 years ago. They are now battalion centric. We are now corps centric. The Russians cannot do corps level operations like Kuwait nor Iraq.

The only NATO members under threat are the Baltic States and that's because of geography. The only defence we can mount there is a pyrrhic one. The Russians will win in the Baltics but would cost them any hope of repelling NATO counter-attacks anywhere else. Other than that, there's not one NATO member that fears a Russian onslaught.

Perception is a lot of reality. Don't you think a Russian leader (Putin won't be in power one day either through retirement, overthrow, or death) would pick the weakest point to attack and do it? I'm not sitting here and saying the Russians are going to roll into Leipzig, that's idiotic. Putin's goal is not to defeat NATO militarily, he'd lose. He wants to see NATO become what the Rio Treaty became post-Falklands War (dead letter to a lot of Latin America, which Mexico formally stated to not back us on Iraq in the Security Council vote). I can provide you post after post of Western and Central Europeans from other boards that see no point in NATO, they don't like it's American-dominated, Russia's never going to attack, Poland and the Baltic states are delusional and just seeking money, their country should be neutral in military affairs, they're not going to war over Lithuania. These are democratic countries. I'm sure if one person says it a lot of people believe the same, and I'm sure that frame of mind carries a lot of weight with certain constituencies in Canada. This is all pre-now, and some but not all of it is pre-Crimea. Like I said, Russian conflict now is less abstract theoretical and more plausible. This blew up a lot of previous risk assessments.

So getting rid of NATO means creating crises and exacerbating differences in the allies. He already split NATO twice in Georgia 2008 and Crimea 2014, seemingly most driven by Merkel. Merkel's now gone (I bet she's glad she's in retirement now and doesn't have to deal with this!), we'll see how this crisis goes.

[rj1]

I guess we need a new version of Godwin's law. Everything eventually devolves into a Republican vs Democrat fight.

I'm running for election as a Libertarian in November and am a county party chair, they both suck.