View Poll Results: Does NATO care for the defense of Poland?

Voters
42. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    26 61.90%
  • No

    9 21.43%
  • Hard to say

    7 16.67%
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst 123456789101112 LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 240

Thread: NATO - myth or legend?

  1. #181

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    Europe is dealing with Russia already: EU slapped her with economic sanctions and the Western European members of NATO sent soldiers and jet fighters to the defense of the East European NATO members.

    Once Russia collapses due to the new arms race it has engaged in, Europe will deal with her natural resources.


    The economy is still adjusting and it already stabilized almost a year ago.

  2. #182

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dromikaites View Post
    Europe is dealing with Russia already: EU slapped her with economic sanctions and the Western European members of NATO sent soldiers and jet fighters to the defense of the East European NATO members.

    Once Russia collapses due to the new arms race it has engaged in, Europe will deal with her natural resources.
    By "dealing with" I meant get along with, work together. let the anglo saxon countries and the zionists isolated. The two are meant for each other. Let Russia open a new beginning with Germany. I mean, after all, who really give a crap about the holocaust anymore? "getting over it" (or at least diplomatically saying so) can offer new friendships, so the internationally chess game has a new check mate.
    "Run to the rescue with love and peace will follow"

  3. #183

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaul View Post
    let the anglo saxon countries and the zionists isolated. The two are meant for each other. Let Russia open a new beginning with Germany. I mean, after all, who really give a crap about the holocaust anymore?
    I think I've seen this movie before.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  4. #184

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaul View Post
    "getting over it" (or at least diplomatically saying so) can offer new friendships, so the internationally chess game has a new check mate.

    And with a most out of the box, happiest ending.
    "Run to the rescue with love and peace will follow"

  5. #185

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdaddy1204 View Post
    I completely agree with this post.

    NATO is a cold war dinosaur. The modern world needs new alliances, fit for the needs of the 21st century. I'd like to see a complete reshuffle of international relations, including an end to western support for Saudi Arabia, the demise of the Turkish leader Erdogan, the restoration of friendly relations between Iran and the west, and the demise of ISIS. I want to see solid western protection for countries like Poland against the imperialist schemes of Russia. I also believe an independent Kurdistan should be recognised.


    I would like to see the USA ally with Iran, Russia, Germany [a nationalist Germany once Merkel is deposed and a real German government is in power], and perhaps Japan and Australia, against the rising threat of China.
    "God is, as man conceives Him, the reflected image of man himself." Albert Pike in Morals and Dogma (33° AASR)


    Ignore list [to save time]-
    Ferrets54, Hanny, Harith, mongrel, Setekh, Gaidin, Bismarck1899, antaeus, empr guy, Enros, IronBrig4, The spartan, the_mango55, Sar1n,

  6. #186

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaul View Post
    By "dealing with" I meant get along with, work together. let the anglo saxon countries and the zionists isolated. The two are meant for each other. Let Russia open a new beginning with Germany. I mean, after all, who really give a crap about the holocaust anymore? "getting over it" (or at least diplomatically saying so) can offer new friendships, so the internationally chess game has a new check mate.
    Germany is experiencing a combination of low birth rate and aging population. That might be the reason for recently allowing a large number of refugees in.

    The problem with those refugees is they are Muslim and therefore hard to integrate. That would not be the case with refugees resulting from the collapse of the Russian Federation and the Civil War which might happen as the result. So yes you are right Germany has a lot to gain by dealing with Russia properly: natural resources and cheap labor.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MareNostrum

  7. #187
    Anna_Gein's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Paris
    Posts
    3,666

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Given the recent false accusation of McGurk against Turkey should be considered dead. McGurk is the US official in charge of leading and coordinating the coalition against the Islamic State. He accused Turkey of facilitating the entry of a preeminent al Qaeda leader in Syria (it was in fact Iran during an hostage exchange).

    The video :

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Setting aside how problematic it is for such a senior official to do this kind of mistake, this incident highlight how the US became incapable to manage an alliance. The US is contently ignoring and blaming its allies rather than deal with political and military opponent. The issue extend far beyond Turkey which is seeing its territorial integrity compromise and its military power undermined because incapable and dangerous people like McGurk are currently leading the US policy.

  8. #188

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Political factionalism has crippled many bodies within the Executive. I would not be surprised that it has had an effect on the military as well. It's only natural. Having civilians in charge of grand strategy is always going to be problematic, especially when it's not just the commander-in-chief, but quite a few of senior consultants and policymakers, a number of which will change with every administration.

    On the one hand, if the entire military body is comprised of enlisted officers and staffers who graduated from something like say, West Point (in theory possibly apolitical)... you will get a united and consistent front. I imagine more things will get done. On the other hand it makes it inflexible, ignorant of rather obvious oversights, and so on. On the other hand, constantly changing experts from the private sector who have a number of differences in ideology, education, and political allegiance, you will get a lot more diversity and different approaches to solving problems. With the negative being a fractured and sometimes nonsensical policy that is ideologically inconsistent. So there are tradeoffs to either approach.

    Regardless, the last two decades have demonstrated just how tough it is to manage public opinion with effective foreign policy. IMO, the US should take a harder stance on controversial issues like Iraq and Syria. Half-measures are worse than no measures. Either commit fully and defend your reasons, or don't go in at all. Iraq has shown us that lying about your objectives will get you less respect than simple realpolitik. And Syria has shown us that staying out of conflicts will get you less than trying to "help". There would be far less friction with our European brothers had we stayed out of Syria. Instead, we have given yet more proof that Americans are at world police and that we should just mind our own damn business.

  9. #189

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    In 2016 Greece was in War preparations against Turkey - they just saw it as a chance after the failed coup d'etat - War between NATO Allies - the Support from Greece to the PKK until the 90´s is already well known and prooved, also Syria has supported them.

  10. #190

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Α Russian Civil War or the fragmentation of the Russian Federation, even if they were remotely realistic scenarios could hardly help Germany. The German Ministry of Foreign Affairs is mature enough to realize that its bilateral investments with Russia are more significant than an deteriorating confrontation with her for the sake of a collapsing and small Ukrainian economy, which doesn't offer as many chances for consumption and exploitation as the huge population and territories of Russia do. Secondly, it is apparent that any armed conflict could threaten German interests and provoke a chain of potentially disastrous events. Of course, a Russian Civil War, albeit completely out of question at least for the foreseeable future, despite the predictions of painfully biased self-proclaimed experts and the economic sanctions of mediocre effectiveness, would irremediably damage the prosperity of Germany. On a few words, the interests of German establishment and those of a tiny, fringe group of Eastern European ultra-nationalist revisionists do not coincide at all, so it would be futile to expect Germany to help the cause of the warmongering far-right, without any compensation, quite the contrary actually.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Germany doesn't even endorse the more belligerent stance adopted by populist Poland, which confirms that the conclusion about the conflict of interests between her and anti-Russian reactionaries of Eastern Europe is correct.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anna_Gein View Post
    The US is contently ignoring and blaming its allies rather than deal with political and military opponent. The issue extend far beyond Turkey which is seeing its territorial integrity compromise and its military power undermined because incapable and dangerous people like McGurk are currently leading the US policy.
    It's not the problem of NATO that the Turkish government was incapable of appropriately handling the Syrian crisis. Erdoğan and Davutoğlu, whose book amateurish, naive and delusional book called "Strategic Depth" inexplicably granted him a worldwide reputation as a geopolitical genius, lent almost immediately and indiscriminately their support to the Syrian (and uncomfortably too often not so Syrian) opposition, presumably manipulated by the fall of the Libyan regime, despite being too early to accurately assess the possibilities of the Syrian government losing the civil war, of a post-Assad unified Syria and of Turkey's abilities to influence the revolutionary regime. Predictably, the policy of offering the country's valuable riches to every stranger despising the Syrian government, from Wahhabi jihadists and Al-Qaeda terrorists to Kurds with strong and obvious ties with PKK, backfired spectacularly, gaining Turkey her neighbors' disapproval and throwing some of them into chaos, while simultaneously reinforcing the crumbling position of a secessionist terrorist group. NATO didn't encourage Turkey to hospitalize YPG and ISIL fighters, so it's hardly responsible for the failure of Turkish interests in the region, in spite of unjustifiably entitled complaints. A great article about the contradictory visions of the Turkish foreign policy, without falling into the traps of either Sunni victim mentality or the alleged inherently evil Ottoman project.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Even if the poor jihadists of Idlib or Turkey had indeed been beacons of humanity, when compared to the Syrian Arab Republic or the Syrian Democratic Forces, blaming the United States for incompetence is surreal, because foreign policy is determined by political, diplomatic and financial interests, not ethics. It may look machiavellian or cynical, but honestly, expecting otherwise is, in my opinion, unreasonable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Instead, we have given yet more proof that Americans are at world police and that we should just mind our own damn business.
    The term "word police" is very misleading, at least until the planet of Earth is controlled by a single state. The United States, like every other major power during human history, is only interested in stability, only when it affects its interests, ranging from its diplomatic allies to international trade routes natural resources exploited by American companies. Generally, peaceful coexistence is advantageous for them, considering that, under the current status quo, the United States are in a dominant position, but there are always exceptions, such as the case of Syria, whose prosperity benefits only America's geopolitical adversaries, like Iran or Russia. The United States modestly strengthening, both financially and militarily, rebels of dubious morals and ideology, could be a very clever strategy, as long as it forces Iran and Russia to spend a disproportionate amount of resources, in order only to maintain the situation before the war's outbreak. Their moves are not only stellar, especially when millions are wasted to the training of phantom mercenaries, but the United States have already readjusted their tactics, abandoning the essentially useless "Salafist Emirate of Idlib", so that they can concentrate their efforts on Eastern Syria, vital for future contacts between Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon. Summarily, I believe it is unjust to criticize America for functioning terribly as a "world police", because they never assumed this role nor even they intended to do so. Perhaps the governments have claimed to serve as a global police force, but that statement, basically designed for public image purposes, would render them hypocritical not incompetent.
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; August 15, 2017 at 12:22 PM.

  11. #191

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sukiyama View Post
    Either commit fully and defend your reasons, or don't go in at all. Iraq has shown us that lying about your objectives will get you less respect than simple realpolitik.
    What objectives were lied about?

  12. #192
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Plainly talking, the nuclear screen for Europe is simply not there anymore. Probably gone since the early 90's. I wonder why nobody invades us right now? We are completely defensless against Russia, we are maybe capable to bleed out Turkey. For how long exactly is this situation deemed to be acceptable? Is there a schedule of dispair or something?

  13. #193

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Quote Originally Posted by swabian View Post
    Plainly talking, the nuclear screen for Europe is simply not there anymore. Probably gone since the early 90's. I wonder why nobody invades us right now? We are completely defensless against Russia, we are maybe capable to bleed out Turkey. For how long exactly is this situation deemed to be acceptable? Is there a schedule of dispair or something?
    Why would Russia invade Western Europe? They are a major trading partner.
    Last edited by Iskar; August 17, 2017 at 03:04 AM. Reason: continuity

  14. #194

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Depends on whether it falls within the Russia near abroad who need liberation.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  15. #195
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Plainly talking, the nuclear screen for Europe is simply not there anymore. Probably gone since the early 90's. I wonder why nobody invades us right now? We are completely defensless against Russia, we are maybe capable to bleed out Turkey. For how long exactly is this situation deemed to be acceptable? Is there a schedule of dispair or something?
    Last time I checked France and UK still have SSBNs and give the actual state of the Russian navy I doubt they have minders from the Czar
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  16. #196
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Quote Originally Posted by swabian View Post
    Plainly talking, the nuclear screen for Europe is simply not there anymore. Probably gone since the early 90's. I wonder why nobody invades us right now? We are completely defensless against Russia, we are maybe capable to bleed out Turkey. For how long exactly is this situation deemed to be acceptable? Is there a schedule of dispair or something?
    Indeed France and the UK retain a nuclear deterrent- The UK's 4 SSBN's are actually going to be replaced by a newer series of subs being worked on currently, but until then they are still on active duty. The UK also has a stock of 215 nuclear missiles, but refuses to declare fully the size of its arsenal (at least that's the UN figures). We also even have a Prime Minister who stated that we'd use them on a 'first strike' basis apparently... which is novel (and incredibly stupid, but it is Theresa May) considering that's the exact opposite of what their meant to be for both in UK strategic and military strategy (Issues with lacking any defense in depth and our own survivability in us using a first strike scenario- it would legitimately guarantee our doom, a fact recognized by the UK's military establishment and nearly the entirety of the political class...apart from her).

    While France has iirc just shy of 300 i think (at least that's their aim in cutting their stock pile down). France mirrors the UK in having four nuclear submarines of which one is always active and patrolling when armed- but on top of this France also has nuclear weapons deliverable by air- though i'm not up on what exactly this system is.

    So Europe is pretty well equipped with a collective of 515ish nuclear weapons, considering China has around 260ish nuclear weapons, India is 125, Pakistan 12.

    We are of course nowhere near to what the US and Russia can throw around, The US are on i believe around 3000 odd to Russia's 4000- these of course are of varying types and delivery mechanisms, but it basically means the world is pretty balanced so that the concept of MAD (barring incompetent prime ministers) is still very much alive and kicking and the tactical or strategic use of nukes as offensive weapons isn't an option.

    What we could have a go at Europe for though quite rightly is in the conventional sense. Though this apparently is changing given recent geopolitical crisis points, but Europe probably due to the relative sizable strength of its nuclear deterrent (and until recently a firm faith in US-led NATO support) punch well below their weight when it comes to military power. This is potentially both a terrible mistake and a good thing (or it would be the latter if a proper shared defense system was in place, allowing defense burdens to be shared, reducing costs while actually 'up-ing' potential military power), but iirc as of two years ago admittedly, European and US defense analysts gave mainland Europe three weeks of being able to fight a successful defensive war against Russian conventional forces before they would have to sue for peace (Note though this wasn't Russia overrunning Europe- merely that Europe's 'as of then' military strength would be exhausted).
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; August 19, 2017 at 12:44 PM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  17. #197

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Going by American commentary, nuclear warheads deteriorate, and need to be constantly monitored and virtually tested, which is what I suppose all those supercomputers are for, and stocks need an occasional regeneration, which is one reason everyone's watching how much money Putin is willing to put into the Strategic Rockets arm. It is an expensive hobby.

    At some point, NATO will deploy a substantial armed drone component, and you'll get an arms race there; though that's something that's more likely to favour the West, since until they run out of energy and ammunition, they'll likely thrive in a an NBC environment, so if the Russians escalate that far, they can be considered deadman switches.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

  18. #198
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    Sorry double DSL is this morning can't tell if I am posting or not with service failure
    Last edited by conon394; August 20, 2017 at 08:32 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  19. #199
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    16,794

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    but iirc as of two years ago admittedly, European and US defense analysts gave mainland Europe three weeks of being able to fight a successful defensive war against Russian conventional forces before they would have to sue for peace (Note though this wasn't Russia overrunning Europe- merely that Europe's 'as of then' military strength would be exhausted).
    I Just really cannot see that - looks like alarmist crap to me.

    Russia's military is still mostly a Potemkin upgrade sitting on a pile of old soviet gear. Sure with absolute safety - as in park and shell the Ukraine, but really drive thought the Ukraine and fight Poland, or cut through Finland (that went well before). By what complete surprise? NATO will absolutely fail to notice Russian forces massed at the edge of the Ukraine and Belorussian borders?

    Simply put outside of Nukes Russia does not have the capacity to harm the US or contest the sea with the USN so the US can ship in all the supplies it wants and who buys more from China the US or the USSR - China neutral. Wait who does the Czar need his oil economy to sell too - oh yes NATO countries. So no Income, and his Debt is wall paper... While a safe Japan is happy to sell the US some of its of its of rake gear as would the Israelis no doubt. Russia really can't fight Europe and threaten the Japanese or anyone else. Really I can't see any conventional war Russia can win with NATO at all. In general the US also has spent more on storage for retired equipment, has better access to allies who likely sell stuff, and has better production rates for current equipment, and recently a better record of damage control and an army with more combat experience a large scale operations that are contested.

    You do realize Russia still counts T55/54s in it arsenal right? I pretty sure that aside from the fact a LAW can blow them up. Lots Polish, American, UK and French troops have been fighting the forever war vs Terrorism have had long enough figure how to make IEDs that can as well (blow up old soviet gear)

    ----------------

    NATO will deploy a substantial armed drone component
    Maybe I'd still think the potential vulnerabilities and limitations of drones are underestimated - I'd hate to bet the farm on them w/o some actual combat vs a able foe. Massed aerial daylight strategic bombing sounded really good to the US before 1942... looked good on paper had the nifty bomb sight and all those defensive guns and formations and good pilots and we sort of know how that worked out even against a depleted enemy air force.
    Last edited by conon394; August 20, 2017 at 08:38 AM.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  20. #200

    Default Re: NATO - myth or legend?

    One reason the Kremlin is investing heavily in electronic warfare.

    It takes eighteen years to groom a soldier, and six months to a year to train him, another year to integrate him into his unit.

    You can probably manufacture a drone in a month, and constantly upgrade it's performance and programming, if not dispose off it once a better model comes along, without legacy costs like lifelong pensions and medical care.
    Eats, shoots, and leaves.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •