Guy who claims to have predicted Russia's invasion of Crimea - Paul D. Miller - says Putin's next play will be Latvia - Trump will have to decide whether invoking Article V for the sake of the Baltics will happen, determining the fate of NATO and Europe.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/16/how-world-war-iii-could-begin-in-latvia/?utm_content=bufferb76c9&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
What does languish think?
QuotePutin has already succeeded in eroding NATO's credibility. His last two targets, Georgia and Ukraine, were not NATO members, but in 2008 had been explicitly and publicly assured that they would be granted Membership Action Plans, the roadmap to membership. Russia clearly and publicly opposed any steps towards NATO membership for both countries — and then proceeded to invade them.
Russia's invasions of Georgia and Ukraine created disputed territories — South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Crimea — occupied by Russian soldiers. No country will ever join NATO while being partly occupied by Russia.
Putin now has the most favorable international environment since the end of the Cold War to continue Russian expansion. European unity is fractured. Alliance members are questioning the value of the mutual security pact. And the next American president seems openly favorable to Russia and ready to excuse Russia's irresponsible behavior.
Putin's next step is more dangerous than the previous ones, because he is likely to move into the Baltics, which are NATO members. He will not send large formations of uniformed Russian soldiers over the international border — even the most cautious NATO members will not ignore an overt conventional invasion.
Instead, Putin will instigate an ambiguous militarized crisis using deniable proxies, probably in the next two years. Perhaps Russian-speaking Latvians or Estonians (a quarter of Latvians and Estonians are ethnically Russian) will begin rioting, protesting for their rights, claiming to be persecuted, asking for "international protection." A suspiciously well armed and well trained "Popular Front for the Liberation of the Russian Baltics" will appear. A few high-profile assassinations and bombings bring the Baltics to the edge of civil war. A low-grade insurgency may emerge.
Russia will block all United Nations Security Council resolutions, but will offer its unilateral services as a peacekeeper. The North Atlantic Council will meet. Poland will lead the effort to invoke Article V, declare the Baltics under Russian attack, and rally collective defense against Russian aggression. The Germans and French will fiercely resist. Everyone will look to the United States to see which way the alliance leader tilts.
If the Alliance does not invoke Article V, NATO's mutual security guarantee becomes functionally meaningless. No alliance member will put any faith in the treaty to guarantee it's own defense against Russia in the future. The geopolitical clock will rewind to 1939. Some Eastern European states may choose to bandwagon with Russia. Others, starting with Poland, will begin arming to the teeth. Putin's dream of a fractured West and an open field in Europe will be realized.
But if the Alliance does invoke Article V, it will be tantamount to a declaration of war by the West against Russia. And that's when Trump will have to decide if the defense of Latvia is worth risking World War III.
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 04:42:14 PM
Guy who claims to have predicted Russia's invasion of Crimea - Paul D. Miller
....
Snip
....
Too soon after Crimea and more importantly I'd guess Putin will want to see an agreement over Syria inked with Trump before anything happens in E.Europe.
:lol: I somehow doubt a world war will start in some country in Eastern Europe few have even heard of.
The Baltics should never have been let into NATO, and their governments could preempt the whole crisis by just letting the Russian-speakers vote... but we need to uphold our commitments. If Trump disagrees (and there's really no way to predict how that would go), then I guess that's the end of the alliance.
I think it depends on how much domestic unrest Russia has over their crappy economy, and how big the existential threat Putin thinks he needs to manufacture to keep things in line.
Trump stands in the way? Bye Latvia, thanks for all the laughs and for buying old equipment from a company I worked for.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 04:50:48 PM
:lol: I somehow doubt a world war will start in some country in Eastern Europe few have even heard of.
People heard of them. They're the ones that tried to copy denmarks flag and messed up.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 04:50:48 PM
:lol: I somehow doubt a world war will start in some country in Eastern Europe few have even heard of.
Better watch it or Berkut will pull out a high school geography book.
I got the joke, Brain.
Anyway, I really wish we hadn't invited the Balts into NATO. For one thing, two of three of them are apartheid states. For another, it was always an unnecessary provocation of the only other power in the whole wide world that actually has the capability of severely hurting the U.S., Britain, or France. For three, Latvia is not important enough to our interests to risk a serious war over, in the way that West Germany was.
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 04:50:48 PM
:lol: I somehow doubt a world war will start in some country in Eastern Europe few have even heard of.
:lol:
Sometimes you're really funny :hug:
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2016, 05:10:54 PM
I got the joke, Brain.
Anyway, I really wish we hadn't invited the Balts into NATO. For one thing, two of three of them are apartheid states. For another, it was always an unnecessary provocation of the only other power in the whole wide world that actually has the capability of severely hurting the U.S., Britain, or France. For three, Latvia is not important enough to our interests to risk a serious war over, in the way that West Germany was.
I think that sentiment is what Putin would be banking on.
Yeah, and he probably should. Things I learned from the events 2003-2009: we can't save the world. These days, we don't even have the right to try.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2016, 05:10:54 PM
I got the joke, Brain.
Anyway, I really wish we hadn't invited the Balts into NATO. For one thing, two of three of them are apartheid states. For another, it was always an unnecessary provocation of the only other power in the whole wide world that actually has the capability of severely hurting the U.S., Britain, or France. For three, Latvia is not important enough to our interests to risk a serious war over, in the way that West Germany was.
After Slovenia and the Czechoslovaks they're probably the eastern european countries that are doing best.
That Estonia is very big on seeing itself as part of northern europe really pushes them our way.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 17, 2016, 05:18:06 PM
Yeah, and he probably should. Things I learned from the events 2003-2009: we can't save the world. These days, we don't even have the right to try.
Not sure I follow that. We fuck up a bit and then knee cap ourselves which means we should just let everything go to shit?
I saw in a recent poll that only the LibDem voters would really support helping the Baltic countries against the Russians. All the other voters would be ambivalent or against.
Quote from: PJL on November 17, 2016, 05:57:17 PM
I saw in a recent poll that only the LibDem voters would really support helping the Baltic countries against the Russians. All the other voters would be ambivalent or against.
Were I in charge of the Baltic countries, I'd invest a bit in PR to push a "we're like you" narrative in big NATO countries (i.e. Germany, France, US, UK).
Next Russian presidential election is in 2018, and with their economy going down the gutter Putin is going to need some stunt, sadly.
Quote from: celedhring on November 17, 2016, 06:00:54 PM
Next Russian presidential election is in 2018, and with their economy going down the gutter Putin is going to need some stunt, sadly.
He might have to call a couple of his personally-appointed governors, for instance.
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: PJL on November 17, 2016, 05:57:17 PM
I saw in a recent poll that only the LibDem voters would really support helping the Baltic countries against the Russians. All the other voters would be ambivalent or against.
Were I in charge of the Baltic countries, I'd invest a bit in PR to push a "we're like you" narrative in big NATO countries (i.e. Germany, France, US, UK).
Were I in charge I would grant citizenship to the Russians living there. The fact that ethnic Russians have genuine grievances really muddies the waters here.
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 04:42:14 PM
But if the Alliance does invoke Article V, it will be tantamount to a declaration of war by the West against Russia.
If that were true, what's the point of Putin using deniable proxies?
Call his bluff.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 17, 2016, 07:06:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 04:42:14 PM
But if the Alliance does invoke Article V, it will be tantamount to a declaration of war by the West against Russia.
If that were true, what's the point of Putin using deniable proxies?
Call his bluff.
Because nobody wants nuclear war.
Yes, nobody wants nuclear war, including Putin. So letting NATO fall apart because he *might* use nukes when he's not even using uniformed soldiers would be a mistake.
You know what, fuck you guys.
The Baltic States had the balls to break from Moscow in the first place--on their own, no less--and they have the right to be defended BY THEIR TREATY-BOUND ALLIES if Moscow tries to fuck with them again.
Fucking assholes. Moscow, too.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifsec.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FGIF%2F2014%2F04%2FPutin-Laughing-gif.gif&hash=60d3e7bce66a7854cf7602497d63284ca4b1bb36)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2016, 08:01:13 PM
You know what, fuck you guys.
The Baltic States had the balls to break from Moscow in the first place--on their own, no less--and they have the right to be defended BY THEIR TREATY-BOUND ALLIES if Moscow tries to fuck with them again.
Fucking assholes. Moscow, too.
I applaud you stand, and I stand with you. that will make two of us :(
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 05:15:28 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 04:50:48 PM
:lol: I somehow doubt a world war will start in some country in Eastern Europe few have even heard of.
:lol:
Sometimes you're really funny :hug:
Sometimes?
I always assume that, when he says something that I don't find funny, it is my fault.
Question, doesn't Russia have close ties to Iran? If Trump tears that deal up on the first day in office, won't they be pissed? The Trump-Putin fall out could begin sooner than expected. There's not enough room in the world for both egos.
Why would he be pissed? He'll get even more closer to Iran than he is now.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2016, 11:20:12 PM
Question, doesn't Russia have close ties to Iran? If Trump tears that deal up on the first day in office, won't they be pissed? The Trump-Putin fall out could begin sooner than expected. There's not enough room in the world for both egos.
I think Russia is fine with having an Iran dependent on them and pissed off at the west.
I think we have to support the Baltics, the alternative is waiting till Poland is invaded like last time.
There is a certain amount of realpolitick here, one can have sympathy for Ukraine and Georgia, but it is totally understandable why NATO did not jump in. Reneging on explicit treaty obligations is a very different matter.
Meanwhile, any NATO member spending less than the 2% needs to resolve that shortfall asap.
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: PJL on November 17, 2016, 05:57:17 PM
I saw in a recent poll that only the LibDem voters would really support helping the Baltic countries against the Russians. All the other voters would be ambivalent or against.
Were I in charge of the Baltic countries, I'd invest a bit in PR to push a "we're like you" narrative in big NATO countries (i.e. Germany, France, US, UK).
Europe in general could use that pointed the UKs way <_<
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 09:43:43 PM
I always assume that, when he says something that I don't find funny, it is my fault.
You're kind, but I accept full responsibility for lame posts. :)
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: PJL on November 17, 2016, 05:57:17 PM
I saw in a recent poll that only the LibDem voters would really support helping the Baltic countries against the Russians. All the other voters would be ambivalent or against.
Were I in charge of the Baltic countries, I'd invest a bit in PR to push a "we're like you" narrative in big NATO countries (i.e. Germany, France, US, UK).
It's high time some Latvians perform in Britain Got Talent. Alternatively Duchess Kate or whatshername should start wearing Latvian designer clothes. You know, focus on important issues people care about, and reach out to them that way.
Yeah, I was thinking recently that we are long overdue for another act of Putin's play. I would imagine he'd wait until Marine LePen is the President of France. :bleeding:
I also agree that The Brain is the most consistently and intelligently funny poster here.
I see that qualifier! Does that mean you agree that Siege is the funniest poster overall? :hmm:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 18, 2016, 06:46:09 AM
I see that qualifier! Does that mean you agree that Siege is the funniest poster overall? :hmm:
Brain is a thinking man's Siege? :hmm:
Quote from: grumbler on November 17, 2016, 09:43:43 PM
Sometimes?
I always assume that, when he says something that I don't find funny, it is my fault.
I should try that. Every time Brain says something that isn't funny, it's Grumbler's fault.
Quote from: derspiess on November 17, 2016, 04:58:02 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 17, 2016, 04:50:48 PM
:lol: I somehow doubt a world war will start in some country in Eastern Europe few have even heard of.
Better watch it or Berkut will pull out a high school geography book.
Way to ruin a great joke by being a whiny bitch. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 17, 2016, 08:01:13 PM
You know what, fuck you guys.
The Baltic States had the balls to break from Moscow in the first place--on their own, no less--and they have the right to be defended BY THEIR TREATY-BOUND ALLIES if Moscow tries to fuck with them again.
Fucking assholes. Moscow, too.
This +1
Yup, I agree with CdM, Viper, and Valmy on this.
No objection. Spain will put forward our creaky, munition-less, and fuel-less Hornets for NATO's service.
I never said we *shouldn't* help them if they're invaded, no matter how much they may have it coming. :)
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2016, 10:39:18 AM
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 agree with CdM and the rest of the hawks.
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.
One needn't be a "hawk" to support NATO.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2016, 10:55:50 AM
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).
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 18, 2016, 10:57:09 AM
One needn't be a "hawk" to support NATO.
Well, I didn't want to call Ide a communist traitor outright.
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.
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2016, 11:11:57 AM
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.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2016, 10:55:50 AM
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 (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.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 10:54:29 AM
I agree with CdM and the rest of the hawks.
Fuck you, baseball bat bait.
What Would Haig Do?
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2016, 10:39:18 AM
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.
Well a modern naval force would be pretty useful in a Baltic based conflict.
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2016, 11:43:29 AM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2016, 10:39:18 AM
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?
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2016, 11:22:46 AM
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 :weep:
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 11:56:26 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2016, 12:02:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 11:56:26 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2016, 10:39:18 AM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2016, 01:12:26 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 10:48:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2016, 10:39:18 AM
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.
Sweden isn't part of NATO, neither is Finland.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2016, 01:23:35 PM
Sweden isn't part of NATO, neither is Finland.
That is true, but neither are fans of Russia throwing their weight around in the Baltic and both are friends of the Baltic states. Additionally, the same person I was referring to said that overt Russian action in the area would likely push both to join NATO as well.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2016, 01:23:35 PM
Sweden isn't part of NATO, neither is Finland.
I thought those countries were close friends of the Baltic States though, particularly Estonia. Would Finland stand by and let the only other Finnic country in the world be taken over without doing anything about it?
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2016, 11:22:46 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2016, 10:55:50 AM
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... ;)
No, I did not.
No party actually increases our military spending even the Cons failed to deliver that.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2016, 01:44:53 PM
No party actually increases our military spending even the Cons failed to deliver that.
(https://i.cbc.ca/1.3031477.1429047752!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/original_620/historical-perspective-of-defence-spending.jpg)
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/government-gets-poor-grade-for-military-spending-1.3030862
So they achieve & then roll back? WTF Stephen?!
Of course Sweden will fight Russia over Estonia if NATO does not.
FFS Canada. We don't ask much and you cannot even fulfill your minimal obligations. At least you are better than the perfidious Belgians, who are without a doubt the worst shirkers in the alliance.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 01:52:11 PM
FFS Canada. We don't ask much and you cannot even fulfill your minimal obligations. At least you are better than the perfidious Belgians, who are without a doubt the worst shirkers in the alliance.
At least we send our people in harms way in support of our American allies. That's got to count for something?
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2016, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 01:52:11 PM
FFS Canada. We don't ask much and you cannot even fulfill your minimal obligations. At least you are better than the perfidious Belgians, who are without a doubt the worst shirkers in the alliance.
At least we send our people in harms way in support of our American allies. That's got to count for something?
Sure. I just hope we send our people into harms way in support of our allies.
Quote from: celedhring on November 18, 2016, 11:11:57 AM
Pretty sure Greece also more than met those targets, unless they have really slashed their defence budget this year.
They have it easier, the denominator keeps going down.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 01:54:19 PM
Sure. I just hope we send our people into harms way in support of our allies.
We did it for our close friends in Kuwait. :sleep:
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 01:34:01 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2016, 01:23:35 PM
Sweden isn't part of NATO, neither is Finland.
I thought those countries were close friends of the Baltic States though, particularly Estonia. Would Finland stand by and let the only other Finnic country in the world be taken over without doing anything about it?
I don't know. Finland would likely not see Russian expansion on its border with a keen eye. Sweden on the other hand... Maybe they'll start waking up when Russia annexes Finland, but I doubt they'd get entangle in any kind of conflict that does not pose a clear & present danger to them. And it's highly unlikely that any movement to join NATO would gain sufficient ground to achieve something meaningful, especially if there's open war between Russia and the US.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 18, 2016, 02:09:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 01:54:19 PM
Sure. I just hope we send our people into harms way in support of our allies.
We did it for our close friends in Kuwait. :sleep:
If Papa Bush and Colin Powell were in charge I wouldn't be worried -_-
Well maybe. Papa is pretty elderly.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 18, 2016, 01:49:35 PM
So they achieve & then roll back? WTF Stephen?!
2008 economic crisis and the following coup by the NDP&Libs that forced Harper to shift his priorities to civilian infrastructure spending. And then the F-35 program got delayed further. And then the Liberals promised to make Canada great again.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 11:54:38 AM
Well a modern naval force would be pretty useful in a Baltic based conflict.
It's no Royal Navy, but we can deploy a decent task force. Once the new subs are finally commissioned, every ship in our battle line -except the Hazard Perry's - will have been built in the 2000s or 2010s.
I am usually a big fan of our soft power approach, but in the current situation Germany should build a big base in the Baltics and station a panzer division there.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2016, 06:37:50 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 17, 2016, 06:00:07 PM
Quote from: PJL on November 17, 2016, 05:57:17 PM
I saw in a recent poll that only the LibDem voters would really support helping the Baltic countries against the Russians. All the other voters would be ambivalent or against.
Were I in charge of the Baltic countries, I'd invest a bit in PR to push a "we're like you" narrative in big NATO countries (i.e. Germany, France, US, UK).
Were I in charge I would grant citizenship to the Russians living there. The fact that ethnic Russians have genuine grievances really muddies the waters here.
the colonists should have been expelled :p
seriously: the baltics are part of the Alliance, and they should be protected by the full might of that Alliance.
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2016, 02:56:55 PM
I am usually a big fan of our soft power approach, but in the current situation Germany should build a big base in the Baltics and station a panzer division there.
Oh my God yes.
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2016, 02:56:55 PM
I am usually a big fan of our soft power approach, but in the current situation Germany should build a big base in the Baltics and station a panzer division there.
Soft power is a very good offensive weapon, as the Russian cyberwarrriors are showing, but deterrence is important for defense.
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2016, 02:56:55 PM
I am usually a big fan of our soft power approach, but in the current situation Germany should build a big base in the Baltics and station a panzer division there.
Be careful with those; it's not like you have as many as you used to :mellow:
Quote from: derspiess on November 18, 2016, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2016, 02:56:55 PM
I am usually a big fan of our soft power approach, but in the current situation Germany should build a big base in the Baltics and station a panzer division there.
Be careful with those; it's not like you have as many as you used to :mellow:
They can fill the ranks with eager Osttruppen volunteers.
Quote from: derspiess on November 18, 2016, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2016, 02:56:55 PM
I am usually a big fan of our soft power approach, but in the current situation Germany should build a big base in the Baltics and station a panzer division there.
Be careful with those; it's not like you have as many as you used to :mellow:
I was genuinely shocked when I found out that we have more Leopard 2 than Germany itself. :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on November 18, 2016, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2016, 02:56:55 PM
I am usually a big fan of our soft power approach, but in the current situation Germany should build a big base in the Baltics and station a panzer division there.
Be careful with those; it's not like you have as many as you used to :mellow:
We can make more of them.
That is the plan right? I understood re-armament was started last year.
Not sure what re-armament means. It's not like we are disarmed. I think the "new" tanks they want to put into service are just older Leo2s from storage that get new electronics and a new main gun. Upgrade from A4 to A7.
In the current situation with a resurgent Russia, I wouldn't mind if we spend more resources on our military. I am not a big believer in the 2% NATO target as that seems arbitrary. We should spend what is necessary and in these times it might be necessary to build a new heavy mechanized unit to deploy in the Baltics.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 11:04:45 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 18, 2016, 10:57:09 AM
One needn't be a "hawk" to support NATO.
Well, I didn't want to call Ide a communist traitor outright.
Last I checked, my country wasn't Latvia.
If it makes you feel better, I could easily be talked into supporting the defense of that other newer NATO member, Poland. Of course, I'm pretty sure you could talk me out of it, too.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2016, 02:56:55 PM
I am usually a big fan of our soft power approach, but in the current situation Germany should build a big base in the Baltics and station a panzer division there.
Soft power is a very good offensive weapon, as the Russian cyberwarrriors are showing, but deterrence is important for defense.
Does hacking adversary government computers count as "soft power"?
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
Last I checked, my country wasn't Latvia.
Last I checked your country was bound to defend Latvia.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:09:56 PM
Does hacking adversary government computers count as "soft power"?
No but propaganda is.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 04:10:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
Last I checked, my country wasn't Latvia.
Last I checked your country was bound to defend Latvia.
Meh, one tweet from the shitter at 4:13am, and that's that.
[twitter]
Can't believe Latvia expects us to defend them after yesterday's invasion! We don't owe them they owe us! So unfair!
[/twitter]
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 04:10:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
Last I checked, my country wasn't Latvia.
Last I checked your country was bound to defend Latvia.
Here's what I really don't want, Val: a nuclear war, especially while Trump is president. What would the outcome of that look like, after the only forces left standing in the continental United States are a wounded U.S. armed forces, under a right-wing reactionary, and a whole host of heavily-armed right-wing militias?
(Oh, assuming we don't outright fucking die, which we would. Thanks Pittsburgh.)
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 04:10:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
Last I checked, my country wasn't Latvia.
Last I checked your country was bound to defend Latvia.
Here's what I really don't want, Val: a nuclear war, especially while Trump is president. What would the outcome of that look like?
Well here is the deal: Russia is not using their nuclear bombs to conquer Latvia.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:28:31 PM
Here's what I really don't want, Val: a nuclear war, especially while Trump is president. What would the outcome of that look like?
If we're lucky, just a few hundred thousand dead Americans along with the several million South Koreans and Japanese casualties.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 11:04:45 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 18, 2016, 10:57:09 AM
One needn't be a "hawk" to support NATO.
Well, I didn't want to call Ide a communist traitor outright.
Last I checked, my country wasn't Latvia.
If it makes you feel better, I could easily be talked into supporting the defense of that other newer NATO member, Poland. Of course, I'm pretty sure you could talk me out of it, too.
I am not sure I need to talk you into or out of anything, when it comes to the US policy. Fortunately, you remain as powerless and devoid of influence as you were even before attending the Klown College. I guess the establishment does have its uses, after all!
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 04:30:41 PM
Well here is the deal: Russia is not using their nuclear bombs to conquer Latvia.
You really need to brush up on your Russian strategic doctrine.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 04:30:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 04:10:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
Last I checked, my country wasn't Latvia.
Last I checked your country was bound to defend Latvia.
Here's what I really don't want, Val: a nuclear war, especially while Trump is president. What would the outcome of that look like?
Well here is the deal: Russia is not using their nuclear bombs to conquer Latvia.
So, what, it's a nice little conventional war that's confined to northeastern Europe? What happens when they start losing?
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 04:31:14 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 11:04:45 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 18, 2016, 10:57:09 AM
One needn't be a "hawk" to support NATO.
Well, I didn't want to call Ide a communist traitor outright.
Last I checked, my country wasn't Latvia.
If it makes you feel better, I could easily be talked into supporting the defense of that other newer NATO member, Poland. Of course, I'm pretty sure you could talk me out of it, too.
I am not sure I need to talk you into or out of anything, when it comes to the US policy. Fortunately, you remain as powerless and devoid of influence as you were even before attending the Klown College. I guess the establishment does have its uses, after all!
As usual, you're all class. I hope Putin uses your skull as a cup.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 04:31:14 PM
I am not sure I need to talk you into or out of anything, when it comes to the US policy. Fortunately, you remain as powerless and devoid of influence as you were even before attending the Klown College. I guess the establishment does have its uses, after all!
Everyone on this forum is powerless in that regard, no need to get personal.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 18, 2016, 04:37:53 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 04:31:14 PM
I am not sure I need to talk you into or out of anything, when it comes to the US policy. Fortunately, you remain as powerless and devoid of influence as you were even before attending the Klown College. I guess the establishment does have its uses, after all!
Everyone on this forum is powerless in that regard, no need to get personal.
Ide's complete lack of honor has always rubbed me the wrong way.
You know, we badmouth Poland a lot here, but it says a lot about the fundamental decency of any culture that has steadfastly refused to beat Martinus' brains out, going on forty-five years. It's a country of potato-swilling saints.
Quote from: Ideologue on November 18, 2016, 04:41:09 PM
You know, we badmouth Poland a lot here, but it says a lot about the fundamental decency of any culture that has steadfastly refused to beat Martinus' brains out, going on forty-five years. It's a country of potato-swilling saints.
I think it's just because I earn 3000% average pay here. Money is a great shield.
I'm sure the fag haters over there are completely cool with a successful fag.
Enjoy your future baseball bat surprise party. And it probably won't even be your birthday, which will make it even more surprisier.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2016, 04:58:06 PM
I'm sure the fag haters over there are completely cool with a successful fag.
Enjoy your future baseball bat surprise party. And it probably won't even be your birthday, which will make it even more surprisier.
They are not. They can't do shit, though. That's the beauty of class privilege. It trumps everything else. I mean, just ask garbon.
STFU. garbon is a biracial angel.
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2016, 04:05:43 PM
I am not a big believer in the 2% NATO target as that seems arbitrary.
that's why it's not a target, but a guideline. Can be more, can be less, depending on the economy of the country, of course, but it's a guide, not a rule. No one should get kicked out because they underspend for a few years.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 05:01:24 PM
They are not. They can't do shit, though. That's the beauty of class privilege. It trumps everything else. I mean, just ask garbon.
You have cops on the payroll, eh?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2016, 05:03:11 PM
STFU. garbon is a biracial angel.
He is a Stanford rich kid who plays his racial/sexuality card way too often.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on November 18, 2016, 05:04:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 05:01:24 PM
They are not. They can't do shit, though. That's the beauty of class privilege. It trumps everything else. I mean, just ask garbon.
You have cops on the payroll, eh?
I live in a gated neighbourhood.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2016, 05:03:39 PM
Can be more, can be less, depending on the economy of the country, of course, but it's a guide, not a rule.
It already depends on the economy of the country. It's a percentage of GDP.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2016, 05:05:27 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2016, 05:03:39 PM
Can be more, can be less, depending on the economy of the country, of course, but it's a guide, not a rule.
It already depends on the economy of the country. It's a percentage of GDP.
what I meant, was, in the short term, your GDP takes a dive due to a recession, it can be excused that military expenses decreases for a few years as you push back some of the equipment expenses that were due.
2% is a long term target, not an absolute yearly rule.
Quote from: Martinus on November 18, 2016, 05:01:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2016, 04:58:06 PM
I'm sure the fag haters over there are completely cool with a successful fag.
Enjoy your future baseball bat surprise party. And it probably won't even be your birthday, which will make it even more surprisier.
They are not. They can't do shit, though. That's the beauty of class privilege. It trumps everything else. I mean, just ask garbon.
That won't help though when President Trump barters Poland to Putin in exchange for knocking 5 cents off their US treasury inventory, ten tins of real caviar, and the naming rights to a St Peterburg luxury hotel and casino.
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2016, 05:08:46 PM
what I meant, was, in the short term, your GDP takes a dive due to a recession, it can be excused that military expenses decreases for a few years as you push back some of the equipment expenses that were due.
2% is a long term target, not an absolute yearly rule.
If GDP takes a dive due to recession, then so does 2% of GDP.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 18, 2016, 05:21:54 PM
Quote from: viper37 on November 18, 2016, 05:08:46 PM
what I meant, was, in the short term, your GDP takes a dive due to a recession, it can be excused that military expenses decreases for a few years as you push back some of the equipment expenses that were due.
2% is a long term target, not an absolute yearly rule.
If GDP takes a dive due to recession, then so does 2% of GDP.
yes, but you might need to reduce it further because you need money for something else, or because you face opposition on the home front. 2% of the GDP is nothing when your economy is booming, just like 15% tax is not much when you're making 1M$/year but it's a lot when you make 15 000$ a year.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 17, 2016, 11:20:12 PM
Question, doesn't Russia have close ties to Iran? If Trump tears that deal up on the first day in office, won't they be pissed? The Trump-Putin fall out could begin sooner than expected. There's not enough room in the world for both egos.
I'm sure Putin would trade Iran for US.
Quote from: Jacob on November 18, 2016, 01:53:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 01:52:11 PM
FFS Canada. We don't ask much and you cannot even fulfill your minimal obligations. At least you are better than the perfidious Belgians, who are without a doubt the worst shirkers in the alliance.
At least we send our people in harms way in support of our American allies. That's got to count for something?
...and for poor Canada, at least recent history, suggests that the most significant source of harm they get in the way of comes from those same American allies...
Fuck Canada.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 18, 2016, 07:32:27 PM
I regret nothing.
I expect your memory is going pretty fast these days, so it's great that you can let go of your regrets as part of that :hug:
With giving Battlefront stupid ideas.
Quote from: Valmy on November 18, 2016, 03:44:58 PM
Quote from: derspiess on November 18, 2016, 03:43:36 PM
Quote from: Zanza on November 18, 2016, 02:56:55 PM
I am usually a big fan of our soft power approach, but in the current situation Germany should build a big base in the Baltics and station a panzer division there.
Quote from: The Brain on November 18, 2016, 03:08:03 PM
Oh my God yes.
Be careful with those; it's not like you have as many as you used to :mellow:
They can fill the ranks with eager Osttruppen volunteers.
Needs a Teutonic Order reference for the Expeditionary Corps. :)
Herman von Salza? Walter von Plettenberg?
Mmmm salsa.
Marti and I were on the same wavelength. -_-