re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.

quote:

---

They are meeting the requirements after the fact is part of my point.

---

Those two countries I referenced are meeting the requirements before the invasion, in response to the Wales Summit in 2014, which is where the 2% guideline was set. The guideline stated that countries had until 2024 to meeting that spending guideline. There were countries on course to meet that target and countries which were not. I don't think we can include the Baltic States in that.

quote:

---

Lithuanian defense spending was still around $1B in 2021.

---

Which is around 2% of their GDP. Those are incredibly small countries.

quote:

---

Those two countries I referenced are meeting the requirements before the invasion, in response to the Wales Summit in 2014, which is where the 2% guideline was set. The guideline stated that countries had until 2024 to meeting that spending guideline. There were countries on course to meet that target and countries which were not. I don't think we can include the Baltic States in that.

---

I shouldn't have tied my point to requirements at all, you are correct.

And even doubling the requirements for a country like Lithuania isn't a huge sum of money when it comes to defense vs a country as big as Russia.

All of those are completely fair and accurate points.

But IMO the leadership of a country who legitimately saw Russia as a threat would be spending more than any minimum requirements.

Finland wasn't even hitting 2% before they joined NATO. Norway was under 2% before 2022 as well.

2% really isn't that much.

quote:

---

2% really isn't that much.

---

It depends. I really don't see the point of 5% GDP spending unless you have the appropriate industrial capacity. If you don't, you are just going to increase the cost of materiel for everyone as there is money willing to be spent while we are already at maximum production levels. Increasing industrial capacity is far more important than just the spending level.

If the alliance is already having trouble dealing with the increased demand caused by Ukraine itself, can you imagine the shitshow that would occur if you had everyone meeting their spending targets in dollars or euros in the next year? You have to build out the industrial capacity in order to make that spending meaningful.

In terms of defense economics, you have to look at where the money is being spent. In Sweden's case, since they actually have a domestic defense industry, their GDP spending might be lower as a percent but more efficient in terms of actual purchasing, as they can see out their procurement contracts over shorter time frames and spend more in international markets where they don't have industrial capabilities. In the cases of smaller countries though, it might be more efficient to just give those countries a largesse of actual materiel than it would be to have them stretch their small budgets to meet their demand.

Spreading the defense targets over time should theoretically decrease the overall pressure on Alliance industrial capacity, which should keep prices stable as well as to give those states clear timelines on when orders can be delivered. I think increasing spending too quickly without the necessary infrastructure is going to cause far more significant problems than a steady increase in spending until those armed forces are modernized, standardized and well-trained.

Please bitch.

quote:

---

Spreading the defense targets over time should theoretically decrease the overall pressure on Alliance industrial capacity, which should keep prices stable as well as to give those states clear timelines on when orders can be delivered. I think increasing spending too quickly without the necessary infrastructure is going to cause far more significant problems than a steady increase in spending until those armed forces are modernized, standardized and well-trained.

---

I'm not advocating for them suddenly starting to spend more now necessarily, I think they should have been spending more the entire time if their rhetoric on Russia is to be believed. So we are in agreement, I just think this spending should have been spread out over a time period starting even before 2014.

But hindsight is 20/20 and that doesn't really do anyone any good now. What is good is that Europe is being more proactive about their own defense, even if I might not agree with the logic behind it.

The industrial capacity to match the spending point is a good one. We are in an interesting time in terms of advocacy for domestic factory production and re-shoring of certain industries. Hard to tell if this is a natural political pendulum swing against globalization that will swing back the other way eventually, or if we will see a long term restructuring of manufacturing. With automation it will make more and more sense to have domestic factories as long as local tax law, land and building prices, and energy costs aren't overly adversarial to industry.

quote:

---

I can't imagine Russia's plan anymore is to try and take Kiev. Of course like I've said before they have proven they aren't the brightest people so who knows. Also the narrative that Russia will role into Europe if they take Ukraine is ridiculous. This war has proven that the conventional Russian military is a joke. Even if they tried to go into Europe, Poland by itself would probably wreck them. The whole rolling up the flank thing isn't something I said would happen but just a possibility if Ukraine doesn't change the way it does some things at the front.

---

Who said Russia has a plan? They are now just a war machine... a crappy one, but...

Post-Ukrainian Russian aggression is certainly possible. And remember, they use "hybrid warfare," too.

So immediately, there's poor little non-NATO Moldova, protected by big brother Romania. A pro-Putin far-right political movement is gaining popularity in Romania... if they should really take over, then those Russian troops in Transnistria (even with ancient Soviet equipment) just roll into Moldova from the North and Romania does nothing, and now Orban in Hungary has a pro-Putin NATO ally to screw with any. response. That is, unless a pro-Putin candidate doesn't just take over Moldova in an election.

People forget that the Iron Curtain/Eastern Bloc was partly constructed through "democratic elections" after WWII. Those countries were all to be included in the Marshall Plan (including the Soviet Union) if they wished. There was, of course, coercion/intimidation and "eliminations" of parties and candidates the Soviets didn't tolerate, but they convinced these populations to screw themselves.

The plans for the Blatic State invasion were found and leaked, though the NATO folks charged with preparing for it knew the obvious course, anyway.

Russian troops would flood into the Suwalki gap between Poland and Lithuania, from both Kaliningrad on the West and Belarus on the East. And then the Baltics are cut off from Europe. The Russian Navy then blockades the coastlines of Estonia and Latvia. The Baltic states were still mostly on the Russian energy grid, so that's cut, other transmission and communication lines from Finland on the floor of the Baltic Sea are severed (they practiced this with shadow fleet ships, recently) and... that;s that, they then just send troops in en masse from Russia and Kaliningrad... meanswhile, it would take 5 days for NATO to invoke Article 5 and a few more days at best to launch a response, by which time Russia would expect to have just overrun the governments and taken control. Numbers are all that count in that scenario.

Things have changed a bit, with Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the Russian Navy being... reduced, Lithuania fortifying the Suwalki Gap after the invasion of Ukraine, the Baltics leaving the Russian energy grid (though transmission lines from Europe could still be severed in the Suwalki Gap was invaded and taken)... and, in light of the 5 day plan being discovered, NATO giving the Baltics and Poland permission to attack Russia immediately with missiles in response instaed of waiting for Artcile 5 to be invoked... I'm not sure if Finland would be in on that, but if they were... St. Petersberg and Moscow could be toast instantly. And then, probably, the Russian nukes fly.

quote:

---

The industrial capacity to match the spending point is a good one. We are in an interesting time in terms of advocacy for domestic factory production and re-shoring of certain industries

---

I mean, Trump's instincts about NATO were completely right. And his points about bringing back some industry is also important. If there isn't a massive program to expand production then all this spending is meaningless, as it will be swallowed by market forces as firms attempt to price discriminate in order to actually produce something deliverable to customers.

quote:

---

Hard to tell if this is a natural political pendulum swing against globalization that will swing back the other way eventually, or if we will see a long term restructuring of manufacturing. With automation it will make more and more sense to have domestic factories as long as local tax law, land and building prices, and energy costs aren't overly adversarial to industry.

---

On top of that, there is also a massive demographic crisis pretty much anywhere where there is even a small amount of development. A massive population is aging out of the workforce and entering the stage of life where medical expenses can explode, and in developed countries, building infrastructure out for potential immigrants is difficult, while immigration remains unpopular. The US has a massive shortage in labor in shipbuilding, and those labor problems might serve as an example of another area where trying to build out industrial capacity can be difficult.

quote:

---

I think it is true that Europe's actions as a whole, including the states most likely to be directly impacted by Russian aggression, haven't lined up with the "we think Russia is going to invade us" marketing tactic that we've seen from their leadership. I also think that the short list of states that was brought up have been better than the others generally, just not to the levels you would see if you legitimately thought you might be the target of an invasion.

---

People get lulled into complacency.

"Putin couldn't actually be THAT stupid or nuts! He's making a lot of money selling energy!! What would he have to gain!?!"

Well, he is that stupid and nuts. What he thinks he gains is having a buffer from NATO invading him (remember, the Russians were surprised that NATO has no contingency planned invasion of Russia... guilty minds are paranoid, they truly believe that West plots to invade and destroy them, militarily... which is funny considering you're saying Europe is silly to believe the opposite, when Russian contingency plans have been leaked). He also does not want EU membership and economic prosperity on his borders, screwing up his Kleptocracy and igniting a revolution among the angry peasants. He also wants the power that comes from rebuilding the Soviet Empire, as opposed to being a huge backwater that is the equivalent, economically, to a typical European country.

“In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact.”
- George Orwell “1984”

This is VERY true in North Korea (the closest real-life example of a government in “1984”)... without the great evil Western enemy, the NK population might decide to overthrow KIm... which is why when Trump started pushing how friendly they were, constantly (while internally it was presented to the NK population that Trump was so afraid of Kim that he was kissing his arse) Kim froze him out and started doing things to invoke a negative response... he needs those clips for internal consumption, there has to be a looming fight)...

And one of the reasons I've seen floated for Putin launching the full-scale invasion (uh, special military operation) of Ukraine was growing unrest inside of Russia because the public was realizing they weren't seeing any benefits from selling all of that energy to Europe. He needed a conflict, a diversion, an enemy... an excuse for robbing the country. He expected it be one without much actual cost. He miscalculated.

So, at this point, what does Putin have to lose if he gets at least a chunk of Ukraine, then moves in Moldova, then the Baltics?

He has the most nukes, and “hypersonic missiles.” Is the US really going to start Nuclear War over some Eastern European countries? Is the US going to stay in NATO if they have to deal with that headache? IS the US going to weaken itself fighting in Europe while it has China to worry about? Does he have the spare cannon fodder to outlast the munitions and arms of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? Are Finland and Sweden really going to go to war for those countries? Will the population of Poland really stand behind war with Russia. Will the comfy Western Europeans really give a shite when the shite hits the fan, or will they think “he can't possibly make it all the way over here, so whatever!?!” And what if his political supporters in Western countries (like Le Pen) actually take power and determine who stands up to him?

The only thing remotely correct in what you said is maybe the last paragraph. No Russian advance would be made through the gap as it would be annihilated pretty quickly by ground troops and air attacks from Poland and Lithuania. Launching any type of invasion of the baltics without establishing air superiority will immediately fail. They can't even establish that over Ukraine. Russia can't even protect it's on ports much less blockade another one. Poland itself could probably stop any Russian invasion of Europe by itself. What you described sounds like it is straight out of a Tom Clancy novel.