Flashpoint Latvia

[Eddie Teach]

One needn't be a "hawk" to support NATO.

[Martinus]

While I agree with the gallery & we all should honour of Nato commitment to the Baltic States.

Other States have to start spending money too, not just the USA.

& especially Germany.

Actually, unless I am mistaken, Latvia is one of the four NATO states that fulfill their NATO spending commitments (the other three being USA, UK and Poland).

[Martinus]

One needn't be a "hawk" to support NATO.

Well, I didn't want to call Ide a communist traitor outright.

[celedhring]

Pretty sure Greece also more than met those targets, unless they have really slashed their defence budget this year.

We are at around 1,3% once you take into account all the defence spending that the government disguises in other parts of the budget (headline defence spending is just 0,9%, but for example the loans to finance our naval program are underwritten by the Ministry of Industry). And it's not going to get an increase anytime soon. We were pretty close to the 2% before the recession.

[Martinus]

Pretty sure Greece also more than met those targets, unless they have really slashed their defence budget this year.

We are at around 1,3% once you take into account all the defence spending that the government disguises in other parts of the budget (headline defence spending is just 0,9%, but for example the loans to finance our naval program are underwritten by the Ministry of Industry). And it's not going to get an increase anytime soon. We were pretty close to the 2% before the recession.

Possibly - I wasn't sure whether the four countries include the US or not (i.e. whether the US is fifth) but couldn't remember another one - but now I recall that it might be Greece. These are the countries Trump mentioned during one of his speeches about NATO.

[viper37]

Other States have to start spending money too, not just the USA.

True.  Canada should spend more.  Oh, wait.  You voted for a guy who promised to spend less... 

http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf

See page 2, bottom graph.

The countries that honour their NATO guideline (2% of their GDP investerd in military expenses) are:
- USA
- United Kingdom
- Greece
- Estonia
- Poland.

That's 5 countries.  Out of 27.

If you specifically look at the Baltic states, while they are lower than 2%, their actual military expenses have risen in the last year.  One could conclude that it is simply a matter of recovering from the economic crisis, and that they are not dragging their feet, as the pro-Trump camp would imply.

The equipment graph also shows you that Baltic states have recently increased their expense in defense material, which means they are modernising their equipments faster than many other NATO countries.

Yes, it is a problem, but it is a problem that is being adressed in many countries.

[CountDeMoney]

I agree with CdM and the rest of the hawks.

Fuck you, baseball bat bait.

[The Brain]

What Would Haig Do?

[celedhring]

No objection. Spain will put forward our creaky, munition-less, and fuel-less Hornets for NATO's service.

Still probably a match for whatever shit the Russians have.

The Spanish Navy is pretty modern, everything else is in a pretty sorry state and with laughable readiness levels. Actually our navy is out of proportion with our real needs, and it was mostly commissioned to be part of NATO task forces. Heavy navy investment (plus some other programs like the Eurofighters we can't afford to fly or the Leopards we can't afford to repair) have eaten into funds available to keep reasonable readiness levels, and the recession has made things worse.

[Valmy]

Well a modern naval force would be pretty useful in a Baltic based conflict.

[The Brain]

No objection. Spain will put forward our creaky, munition-less, and fuel-less Hornets for NATO's service.

Still probably a match for whatever shit the Russians have.

The Spanish Navy is pretty modern, everything else is in a pretty sorry state and with laughable readiness levels. Actually our navy is out of proportion with our real needs, and it was mostly commissioned to be part of NATO task forces. Heavy navy investment (plus some other programs like the Eurofighters we can't afford to fly or the Leopards we can't afford to repair) have eaten into funds available to keep reasonable readiness levels, and the recession has made things worse.

Solution: fly the Leopards?

[Valmy]

The countries that honour their NATO guideline (2% of their GDP investerd in military expenses) are:
- USA
- United Kingdom
- Greece
- Estonia
- Poland.

That's 5 countries.  Out of 27.

Hollande cares nothing about the honor of France

Come on Hollande you only need to increase it by .22%.

Edit: Wait Albania is in NATO? Huh. Never noticed.

Anyway now we see if Trump is going to sell us out to the Russians or not. I am theoretically fine with any detente he wants to do with Putin so long as it does not threaten any of our NATO allies or their interests.

[CountDeMoney]

Anyway now we see if Trump is going to sell us out to the Russians or not. I am theoretically fine with any detente he wants to do with Putin so long as it does not threaten any of our NATO allies or their interests.

Cute.

[Valmy]

Anyway now we see if Trump is going to sell us out to the Russians or not. I am theoretically fine with any detente he wants to do with Putin so long as it does not threaten any of our NATO allies or their interests.

Cute.

And may be impossible. Marty, in one of his rare lucid moments, said something about how every President we elect goes into office thinking they can reduce friction with Russia only to end their term concluding Russia is our worst enemy.

[Jacob]

No objection. Spain will put forward our creaky, munition-less, and fuel-less Hornets for NATO's service.

Still probably a match for whatever shit the Russians have.

I started the same conversation on another forum and there's a dude there who is quite into defense politics in the area. He's saying that the St. Petersburg based Russian Baltic navy is pretty shit (with a Vice admiral and his immediate staff recently dismissed for incompetence), and that the Swedes alone could probably defeat it with even the Finns or Danes on their own being able to give them a run for their money (assuming no nukes).

Furthermore, the geography means that naval bombardment could provide excellent precision artillery support for the fraction of the cost of an air campaign, whether that's against "little green men" or a more conventional military offense.

If that's true, then the Crimean playbook may be less viable for the Russians presuming the Scandinavians and Poles get involved - as they very well might.