- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 12/1/22 at 1:25 pm to Chromdome35
Posted on 12/1/22 at 1:25 pm to Chromdome35
Twitter thread on US involvement in NATO makes a salient point. I'm torn on what the right answer is.
https://twitter.com/RealCynicalFox/status/1598379553336004618
I thought Trump's approach of telling the other NATO countries to carry their own weight was on point.
https://twitter.com/RealCynicalFox/status/1598379553336004618
I thought Trump's approach of telling the other NATO countries to carry their own weight was on point.
quote:
Short NATO??:
It is no longer 1945 when war ravaged Europe needed US economic & military might to rebuild itself. It is no longer even 1985 when the threat of the Red Army & its Warsaw Pact puppet states required a united US & Europe to hold it at bay.
1/
In 2022 Russia has been revealed as a (conventional) military paper tiger. European NATO could easily defend itself out of its own resources if it chose to do so. It staunchly refuses to, with some exceptions almost exclusively in Eastern Europe.
2/
In short, European nations have no need of a US military garrison beyond their own desire not to behave like responsible alliance partners & maintain their own military strength. This is an untenable situation.
3/
As US security concerns in Asia force the reallocation of scarce military resources, keeping a large presence in Europe becomes increasingly unwise. While some forward presence in Europe is a sound policy, 100K+ personnel simply aren't necessary.
4/
Europe should be allowed to stand on its own two feet, militarily speaking. 77 years is long enough. IMO as long as the US continues to garrison the continent, Europe will continue to fob its own security responsibilities off on America. No matter the severity of the crisis.
5/
If the first major conventional land war in Europe in almost 80 years, started by the nation NATO was designed to defend against, wasn't enough to shake off the military apathy - nothing will be as long as the US is shouldering the defense burden in a crisis.
6/6
Posted on 12/1/22 at 1:32 pm to Chromdome35
Yup, the US has been the de facto military of Europe for over 70 years.
It drives me crazy when I hear stupid people say “Europe has free healthcare and education, why can’t we!?!?!?!” Dumbass we’ve been paying the bill for Europe’s defense for 4 or 5 generations and instead of Europe finally building it’s own army when they recovered from WWII they mooched off of the US and spent all their money on socialized programs. And frick any single motherfricker on that continent who thinks they have a leg to stand on to criticize any single US policy or politician. Europe is our little bitch and they need to start acting accordingly.
It drives me crazy when I hear stupid people say “Europe has free healthcare and education, why can’t we!?!?!?!” Dumbass we’ve been paying the bill for Europe’s defense for 4 or 5 generations and instead of Europe finally building it’s own army when they recovered from WWII they mooched off of the US and spent all their money on socialized programs. And frick any single motherfricker on that continent who thinks they have a leg to stand on to criticize any single US policy or politician. Europe is our little bitch and they need to start acting accordingly.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 1:46 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
I’m prepared if he’s willing to talk to find out what he’s willing to do,” Mr. Biden said during a news conference at the White House following a three-hour meeting with President Emmanuel Macron of France. “But I’ll only do it in consultation with my NATO allies. I’m not going to do it on my own.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 1:58 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
At least 6,655 civilians have died and 10,368 have been injured in Ukraine since Russia invaded its ex-Soviet neighbor on Feb. 24, according to the United Nations.
The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights said that the death toll in Ukraine is likely higher than that because armed conflict can delay fatality reports.
Even if we round that up to an even 10K I’m surprised it’s that low.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:07 pm to Chromdome35
Cost for Russian trolls is like the 1970's cost for unskilled Mexican labor for yard work. A tiny budget can hire hundreds of them.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:09 pm to TigerDoc
The folks over at the War Zone on "thedrive.com" have been talking about drones and swarms and the US Military's belated concern about defending against them.
The availability, stealth, capability and relative low-cost of drones is a game-changer in many ways...
The availability, stealth, capability and relative low-cost of drones is a game-changer in many ways...
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:13 pm to Chromdome35
I have seen others mention this (Ace of Spades perhaps)...
Now that Ukraine with substantial help has shown that the Russian Army is not capable of over-running Europe, why does the US have to have such a large presences.
Esp if NATO expands to include some more capable states vs trip-wires, and the membership actually meets their obligations....
Now that Ukraine with substantial help has shown that the Russian Army is not capable of over-running Europe, why does the US have to have such a large presences.
Esp if NATO expands to include some more capable states vs trip-wires, and the membership actually meets their obligations....
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:15 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
Conflict by Chromdome35Twitter thread on US involvement in NATO makes a salient point. I'm torn on what the right answer is. LINK
I thought Trump's approach of telling the other NATO countries to carry their own weight was on point.
Torn as well. I think the thread makes a great point about lack of change in their policy until we leave and they have to suffer for it, but then also we’ve been down that road and it potentially creates a larger problem later. We’re finding out that larger problem later is increasingly unlikely to be Russia in the future.
That said, we’re in it now so I believe we should see the Ukrainian effort through the peace deal. Post war I think we should invest for our own economic & security benefit, but Europe should take over its security from Russia post war. We should foster the partnership with leading nations, would love to see Poland in this spot, and step back to refocus and strengthen Asian alliances and military presence. China is the new Russia in our foreign policy.
This post was edited on 12/1/22 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:17 pm to TigersnJeeps
I think that is the crux of the issue. Russia has been exposed as a paper tiger. In the aftermath of this war, we should adjust our defense strategy accordingly.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:22 pm to DabosDynasty
quote:
Torn as well. I think the thread makes a great point about lack of change in their policy until we leave and they have to suffer for it, but then also we’ve been down that road and it potentially creates a larger problem later. We’re finding out that larger problem later is increasingly unlikely to be Russia in the future.
That said, we’re in it now so I believe we should see the Ukrainian effort through the peace deal. Post war I think we should invest for our own economic & security benefit, but Europe should take over its security from Russia post war. We should foster the partnership with leading nations, would love to see Poland in this spot, and step back to refocus and strengthen Asian alliances and military presence. China is the new Russia in our foreign policy.
I agree with you on all points above.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:29 pm to Chromdome35
We are paying big money now, but if the war goes the right way; Europe can take care of themselves under our nuclear umbrella.
Long term we should save money.
Long term we should save money.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:37 pm to DabosDynasty
quote:
China is the new Russia in our foreign policy.
Yes and no...
China is much more sophisticated than Russia in some ways. However, China strategically can pose threats to us in ways Russia never dreamed of..
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:46 pm to TigersnJeeps
The US has tested drone swarms successfully. They are even interactive with each other.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:46 pm to doubleb
quote:
We are paying big money now, but if the war goes the right way; Europe can take care of themselves under our nuclear umbrella. Long term we should save money.
Is there any reason this hasn’t been the strategy for the past 30 years?
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:49 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Is there any reason this hasn’t been the strategy for the past 30 years?
Russia has spent the last 20 years rebuilding and reforming its military from the ashes of the USSR… they’ve only shown themselves to be incompetent fools within the last 9 months.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:50 pm to klrstix
quote:
Yes and no...
China is much more sophisticated than Russia in some ways. However, China strategically can pose threats to us in ways Russia never dreamed of..
Agree, didn’t mean direct comparison beyond basically being the new big bad that’s treated at/near peer level in the near future.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 2:53 pm to lowspark12
Part of that is due to our intelligence agencies overestimating Russia's capabilities. Another part is the MIC using Russia as the big bad bear that must be defended against via the purchase of $1000 toilet seats.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 3:05 pm to lowspark12
quote:
Russia has spent the last 20 years rebuilding and reforming its military from the ashes of the USSR… they’ve only shown themselves to be incompetent fools within the last 9 months.
That doesn’t excuse Europe for not having a military capable of taking on Russia, or hell, even providing any meaningful support to Ukraine.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 3:14 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Is there any reason this hasn’t been the strategy for the past 30 years?
We did use the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan to route the Taliban from active power.
This is what Reagan did against the USSR. Interesting that the fact finding mission to craft the plan came from Cato. Then it was funded by Reagan. Before the fact finding mission, the various rebellions against the USSR controlled governments didn't know that others were also rebelling. It was a lot more than Afghanistan. The meeting with all the rebel leaders from Middle East, Central America and Africa was held in Africa.
Posted on 12/1/22 at 3:35 pm to Chromdome35
quote:
Then do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop posting in this thread.
Two simple questions that I doubt you'll answer.
Are you an American?
Do you want to see Russia take over Ukraine?
Losers in a bubble need an occasional influx of reality. But I don't want to feed you trolls too much.
Yes, I'm an American. I don't care about Ukraine, but after 10 months of the war and sending money to them and watching that rat looking bastard begging for money,
I hope Russia turns Ukraine into a parking lot and Ukrianians flood into Poland which should be a good deal entertaining. Russia takes the East, Poland takes the West. Ukraine is left with a demilitarized spec of land we never have to hear about or send money to.
Best case scenario.
This post was edited on 12/1/22 at 3:39 pm
Popular
Back to top


3


