NATO without the US

[TopHatter]

Not to get into your arguments with DE but the LNR and DNR do consider it liberation to the point of committing 125K+ men to the 2022 Russian invasion. The LNR and DNR hate Kiev with a passion to the point of open war - the Donbass War.

No worries at all.

It's my understanding that the occupied territories, whether Crimea, LNR, DNR, are regretting coming under Moscow's thumb, as they're now treated like provincial hicks, good for squeezing dry of money, etc.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

It's my understanding that the occupied territories, whether Crimea, LNR, DNR, are regretting coming under Moscow's thumb, as they're now treated like provincial hicks, good for squeezing dry of money, etc.

The other side of that coin is that their cities are no longer being shelled by Ukrainian artillery.

 

[Double Edge]

Do you still believe the Russians are legitimately liberating, i.e. freeing a place or people from a genuine enemy occupation, those Ukrainian towns. Is that an incorrect assumption?

This is a Yes or No question, quite simple for you to answer. Please do so. Thank you.

Yes, liberating. That's what I understood following pro Russian commentators. The ethnic Russian part of Ukraine.

Russia is not going to leave. They have annexed it to the extent possible. Shortly after the invasion I think there was some announcement in their parliament. Any peace agreement is going to have to take this reality into account.

I've seen videos where local people were asking why it took Putin eight years to do so.

Enemy occupied? no. There was no enemy until things blow up over the east not wanting to join the EU.

Oppressed people. Yes. After. An insurgency develops. Little green men. Goes from bad to worse. In over half a century of insurgency in India we never shelled our people. Once you do so you lose the right to call them your people.

In an interview with a mayor from one of those eastern towns he mentioned going over this thousand page document with all the requirements to join the EU.

The people in eastern Ukraine concluded they would lose their industrial base as a result and refused to join the EU. This is when the trouble starts with west Ukraine.

Eastern Ukraine was the most industrialised part of the SU. Back in the day. They made aircraft carriers. Rockets. Ship turbines and plane engines.

FWIW, Putin had no objections to Ukraine joining the EU. All he wanted was some customs agreement that protected Russia from the EU using Ukraine to dump goods into Russia.

Just liberation isn't the whole story. There is the refusal of NATO to confirm Ukraine would not become a NATO member. That question was always left hanging.

There is a precedent here. Austria. After WW2, the same neutrality condition was imposed by the Soviets on Austria. Who complied and faced no problem. Finland too.

 

[Double Edge]

This is so beyond credible I see no answer here as it sounds, to me, like you are Trump acolyte. Only Shiva knows.

What is beyond credible?

That the Republicans do not see Russia as a threat in the same way as the Democrats came from Friedman. I consider that a crucial point when it comes to understanding how one party or the other would handle the situation and the policy enacted. I expect similar behavior from any other Republican president.

I've got another point to make. Remember the Mueller investigation? How do you think that got started.

My reasoning is Trump wouldn't play ball with the Democrats on Ukraine and so they stuck this Russia collusion thing on him. Of course Putin must have some compromat, right?

Got no where. Objectionable but not actionable is the one line summation of that exercise

As for acolyte. I follow who's in charge. I want to know what they are doing and their intent from people that are either biased towards them or neutral.

I've been doing this since 2016.

So if Pakistan attacked and won all of Kashmir, and the only way forward for peace, is to accept the territories it won from India you would be Ok with that? Am I following your thinking on this?

That is already the state of affairs presently with territory Pakistan occupies. Had they managed to win all then that is how things would have been.

I've seen no credible attempt by GOI to reacquire POJK since '47. No point. The only way is to get people on the other side to want to rejoin. They remain hostile and that area has been demographically changed quite a bit.

 

[rj1]

I agree with this bit particularly, at least while Putin is still running the show. In part it's because (thanks to the war in Ukraine) Russia's military is not in a fit state to even contemplate a conventional war with western Europe. And even after the war ends it will take years to rebuilt/remodel the armed services. This is particularly so given what will almost certainly be ongoing sanctions on the sale of western military technologies to Russia (dual use tech is another problem) and Europe's own military rearmament efforts.

And Western European militaries couldn't even do a containment operation in Libya 15 years ago. They had to call the Americans to do it for them. The Europeans calling Obama to handle Libya for them pretty much killed any operational respect I had for Western European militaries. I respect the soldiers, it's more the leadership that controls the militaries I'm talking about. We had absolutely zero dog in the fight, it was a textbook joint Italian/French responsibility, it's not like the French were there for us in Iraq so why were we helping them in Libya when they were in it for oil, and instead of doing their job on why they have a military to start with they went for Deus Ex Machina and called an out of theater actor to do their dirty work for them.

Can we wargame the western European conventional war without U.S. involvement here? Could be fun. Don't pick Russia for antagonist, do something random like Algeria wreaking havoc in the Mediterranean or Serbia annexes Republika Srpska and the Europeans choose to intervene to maintain Bosnian sovereignty. How are the discussions on choosing to respond militarily going to go inside the continent, and then how are the countries that choose to be part of the response going to perform?

Western and Central Europe to me are of the non-combatant states the biggest losers of this Russia-Ukraine War. It completely shattered their worldview and replaced it with the "Eastern Europe in NATO" worldview of "go back to the 1980s, we must be perpetually prepared for war with Russia" when their militaries have atrophied over decades, and their biggest ally they rely on threatens them now routinely to force them into compliance with their wishes.

 

[TopHatter]

Yes, liberating.

That's all I needed to know, thank you. Back in March 2022, I gave you a brief vacation if you see if you wanted to continue backing a murderous regime. The answer is still clearly "Yes", therefore I'm showing you the door again. Good day.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

Can we wargame the western European conventional war without U.S. involvement here? Could be fun. Don't pick Russia for antagonist, do something random like Algeria wreaking havoc in the Mediterranean or Serbia annexes Republika Srpska and the Europeans choose to intervene to maintain Bosnian sovereignty. How are the discussions on choosing to respond militarily going to go inside the continent, and then how are the countries that choose to be part of the response going to perform?

Already done. UNPROFOR. The three largest militaries in UPROFOR were the Brits, French, and Canadians. No Americans involved. Also, the lifting of the Sarajevo Siege was done by British and French forces.

Add to that, you can measure NATO commitment by individual countries in Afghanistan. Canadians holding Kandahar and the Brits holding Helmand.

 

[Monash]

And Western European militaries couldn't even do a containment operation in Libya 15 years ago. They had to call the Americans to do it for them. The Europeans calling Obama to handle Libya for them pretty much killed any operational respect I had for Western European militaries. I respect the soldiers, it's more the leadership that controls the militaries I'm talking about. We had absolutely zero dog in the fight, it was a textbook joint Italian/French responsibility, it's not like the French were there for us in Iraq so why were we helping them in Libya when they were in it for oil, and instead of doing their job on why they have a military to start with they went for Deus Ex Machina and called an out of theater actor to do their dirty work for them.

Can we wargame the western European conventional war without U.S. involvement here? Could be fun. Don't pick Russia for antagonist, do something random like Algeria wreaking havoc in the Mediterranean or Serbia annexes Republika Srpska and the Europeans choose to intervene to maintain Bosnian sovereignty. How are the discussions on choosing to respond militarily going to go inside the continent, and then how are the countries that choose to be part of the response going to perform?

Western and Central Europe to me are of the non-combatant states the biggest losers of this Russia-Ukraine War. It completely shattered their worldview and replaced it with the "Eastern Europe in NATO" worldview of "go back to the 1980s, we must be perpetually prepared for war with Russia" when their militaries have atrophied over decades, and their biggest ally they rely on threatens them now routinely to force them into compliance with their wishes.

Libya was an offshore operation and yes, European military power was and is badly atrophied compared to the peak of the 80s. But then so is Russia's now! And the thing is Europe is rebuilding it's armed forces at a pace Russia cannot match. Not qualitatively anyway. Five to ten years from now? The task of modernizing and expanding won't be complete but Europe will be well along the that pathway.

 

[rj1]

Already done. UNPROFOR. The three largest militaries in UPROFOR were the Brits, French, and Canadians. No Americans involved. Also, the lifting of the Sarajevo Siege was done by British and French forces.

Add to that, you can measure NATO commitment by individual countries in Afghanistan. Canadians holding Kandahar and the Brits holding Helmand.

That was an immediately post-Cold War European military force structure. It has changed over 30 years to say the least.

 

[rj1]

Libya was an offshore operation and yes, European military power was and is badly atrophied compared to the peak of the 80s. But then so is Russia's now! And the thing is Europe is rebuilding it's armed forces at a pace Russia cannot match. Not qualitatively anyway. Five to ten years from now? The task of modernizing and expanding won't be complete but Europe will be well along the that pathway.

Call me when they deploy into a hot conflict. The world's all looking like they'll get one soon enough.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

That was an immediately post-Cold War European military force structure. It has changed over 30 years to say the least.

The Afghan War ended in 2021. It was not 30 years in length.

 

[rj1]

The Afghan War ended in 2021. It was not 30 years in length.

The same Afghan War you decried Europeans' performance in ISAF years ago where they humiliated the Canadians by not inviting them and then had to beg the Turks to take control I think you phrased it?

 

[Officer of Engineers]

That was before NATO took over the ISAF. Since NATO took over, however, the Americans, the British, and the Canadians were conducting offensive operations into Taliban strongholds.

 

[Monash]

Call me when they deploy into a hot conflict. The world's all looking like they'll get one soon enough.

European members of NATO don't have global reach like the US does for the simple reason it's not a monolithic political entity. Two points. Firstly NATO wasn't created to have global military and political reach it was created to counterbalance the threat of invasion by the Soviet Union and as such it's focus has been and is largely eruocentric. Secondly your conflating US national geopolitical and military interests as a unitary power with that of a collective of 30 smaller independent nations that would need to be aligned in some form of European Federal State in order to match the same amount of political and economic power outside of their immediate neighborhood like the USA does. The Republic of the United States of America exists. The Federated States of Europe does not. The two are chalk and cheese.

 

[rj1]

That was before NATO took over the ISAF. Since NATO took over, however, the Americans, the British, and the Canadians were conducting offensive operations into Taliban strongholds.

Wouldn't pre-NATO ISAF be a good stand-in for NATO without the U.S.? Yes, I know it's not exactly apples to apples because memberships were not the exact same, but it was pretty close.

European members of NATO don't have global reach like the US does for the simple reason it's not a singular political entity. Two points. Firstly NATO wasn't created to have global military and political reach it was created to counterbalance the threat of invasion by the Soviet Union and as such it's focus has been and is largely eurocentric.

European members of NATO did have global reach like the U.S. does when NATO was founded. That went away rather quickly with decolonization, and in Britain's case also due to substantial debt and aided by the Suez Crisis. If you look at global power currently, the world's setup as far as how power is measured and who holds it is less eurocentric than it's ever been going back to pre-Columbus. The world of 2026 and the world of 1949 are light years apart. China is significantly more powerful globally in all facets than it was in 1949. Japan was a power pre-1945, in 1949 it was down and conquered, but it's a financial power of sorts and compared to Germany that had similar circumstances I would say it's a more meaningful state in foreign affairs and all that encompasses than Germany is currently. India and Pakistan in 1949 had just transferred from the Raj where India is probably top 5 most important sovereign entities globally at the moment. The Middle East wasn't the Middle East yet. Israel wasn't yet a year old when NATO inaugurated. Meanwhile, France and the UK are drastically weaker than they were in 1949 just in power projection terms. If you want to even compare the NATO opposition, Russia in 2026 is significantly weaker now in terms of global power than the Soviet Union in 1949. So both our allies as well as our opposition in Europe are under relative power terms compared to the rest of the world at-large much weaker in 2026 than they were in 1949. I don't even see how that statement could possibly be controversial as it strikes me as it should be glaringly obvious to anyone with token knowledge of geopolitics and global affairs.

Then there was the fall of the Soviet Union. And there was a half-hearted discussion about "what's our purpose now?" The U.S. under President George W. Bush tried to define a new mission after 9/11. That had mixed results to say the least.

Really a lot of my contempt of the modern world and part of why a person like Donald Trump upsetting the foreign policy apple cart even exists is there comes times where reform of old systems has to happen because existential problems exist, and a lot of people don't want reform because they'll lose power relatively or have an overwhelming sense of fear and are just scared of what could happen next. (Case in point: UN Security Council reform.) So they just ignore the problem because that's the easy path. As an engineer, my job over my career has taught me to have little respect for people that look at problems and ignore them, kick the can down the road, or blindly hope they whither away to nothing. But just because you quash potential reform in the short-term does not stop eventual reform from occurring. In fact with history as a guide, you can see that in a lot of cases the reform when it eventually did occur becomes even more radicalized. From an engineering perspective, you can think of it in terms of stress. If you don't allow for a pressure relief or escape value, you could get sudden catastrophic failure. The world is in a very high state of stress right now. Who's arguing otherwise?

Secondly your conflating US national geopolitical and military interests as a unitary power with that of a collective of 30 smaller independent nations that would need to be alinged in some form of European Federal State in order to matcch the same amount of political and economic power outside of their immediate neibhourhood as the USA does. The Republic of the United States of America exists. The Federated States of Europe does not. The two are chalk and cheese.

The future is those people's choice to make. We'll see what they choose. But I think hardship and sacrifice are coming for most of us when most Westerners haven't had to deal with either for decades now. So when it comes, will the Europeans choose American vassalhood to maintain their own security or are they going to choose their own freedom and responsibility for their own affairs ("NATO without the U.S.")? Pretty confident I know what the middle-class and higher will pick. I see it in my own life and everything going on in this country presently.

 

[Steph]

Putin never issued a nuclear threat. No warning orders were issued. No nukes were ordered to standby launch. Compare the UKR to Sino-Soviet and Arab-Israeli where Soviet nuclear release authority was issued to IRBM battery COs and SSBN Captains. The UKR was NEVER on par with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Wall, Sino-Soviet, nor Arab-Israeli.

Putin goes his equivalent to DEFCON 3. What then? Consider this. Only 25% of either the British or the French nuclear force is ready for launch at any given time. Only 1 out 4 British SSBNs and 1 out of 4 French SSBNs are out on patrol, Translation - only a combined total of 200 British and French nukes are available for launch at any given time.

British and French nuclear coverage of the rest of NATO is extremely lacking!

And that is exactly my point.
If facing NATO without the US, with his good friend in Washington looking elsewhere, there is absolutely no need for Putin to do more than verbal threats, as he has done so far. Until maybe someday some form of enhancend deterrence is built up.

 

[Monash]

As I noted before other than using one or two as 'examples" (threats) using nuclear weapons when your planning a conventional military offensive is counterproductive. If the initial demonstration attacks fail to bring your opponent to the negotiation chamber your left having to use multiple weapons and in general f' up the territory you ultimately want to occupy. And your the one who ends up paying the clean up bill if you do win.

 

[Officer of Engineers]

And that is exactly my point.
If facing NATO without the US, with his good friend in Washington looking elsewhere, there is absolutely no need for Putin to do more than verbal threats, as he has done so far. Until maybe someday some form of enhancend deterrence is built up.

You're shitting me! The Russians ready their nukes and your answer is ... do nothing?

 

[Steph]

it's not like the French were there for us in Iraq

I think it's the 2nd time I see you writing this so I must respectfully ask : you can't be seriously saying that the US needed any French aid in Iraq, can you ?
That was not the US government's opinion at least. On the contrary they made very clear that France would have none of the highly profitable benefits from this war.
I fail to recall how many WMD were finally found there, but I do remember that ISIS was created in US-occupied Irak and later killed hundreds of people, including hundreds of French civilians.

 

[Steph]

You're shitting me! The Russians ready their nukes and your answer is ... do nothing?

That's not what I'm saying. I just don't think that Russia will need to actually ready their nukes.
What for ?