What could the various underspending on defence members of NATO afford if they met the 2% GDP spending requirement set by NATO

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
The US is moving closer to Russia militarily. We are putting bases and more units in Poland, to allow for a place o defend and have a position to attack should the need arise, We are also planning on reinforcing the Blakans and the Black sea.

We are going to be adding to the defense of Western Europe.

Right now? Yes. Containment has gone on for nearly a hundred years now, so the US is going to continue it impart to some degree or another. And the invasion of Ukraine was certainly a shock to everyone, because I'm rather certain many policy makers within the US political system did not think that the Russians would (or could) do something about it.

The reality though is that if/when Trump wins 2020, Trump will continue to pull back. Once the US has Japan, UK, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, and Australia locked into an economic and security network, there will be very little reason for Trump to continue supporting what is an ever-increasingly-failure of NATO. And COVID-19 will probably hasten that in the end, because that's money that Americans are spending on Europe and not themselves. And Trump has shown absolutely no qualms about yanking money away from our closest allies, let alone countries like Poland, Ukraine, and Germany.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Right now? Yes. Containment has gone on for nearly a hundred years now, so the US is going to continue it impart to some degree or another. And the invasion of Ukraine was certainly a shock to everyone, because I'm rather certain many policy makers within the US political system did not think that the Russians would (or could) do something about it.

The reality though is that if/when Trump wins 2020, Trump will continue to pull back. Once the US has Japan, UK, Canada, Mexico, South Korea, and Australia locked into an economic and security network, there will be very little reason for Trump to continue supporting what is an ever-increasingly-failure of NATO. And COVID-19 will probably hasten that in the end, because that's money that Americans are spending on Europe and not themselves. And Trump has shown absolutely no qualms about yanking money away from our closest allies, let alone countries like Poland, Ukraine, and Germany.
You do know that Trumps administration has been working with Poland to help boost their military as well as place new bases there, and multiple troop formations. Same with the Black sea and the Balkins. SECDEF himself went out saying the forces we are pulling from Germany are going towards reinforcing the border with Russia over Germany, who seems to not want our help.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
You do know that Trumps administration has been working with Poland to help boost their military as well as place new bases there, and multiple troop formations. Same with the Black sea and the Balkins. SECDEF himself went out saying the forces we are pulling from Germany are going towards reinforcing the border with Russia over Germany, who seems to not want our help.

I'm aware of some of our doings in Poland, yes. Trump, despite all media pretenses, is not a Russian ally. He has no reason to make things easy for Russia, especially at the cost of American businesses in Poland, of which there is a strong presence. My position is that when the rubber hits the road, the US is not going to be there. We might sell them hardware, intelligence, and assist with military advisors, but you are not going to see the Americans bleeding for Poland.

So long as Poland understands this and understands that the military base there is probably a passing situation, then Poland can properly prepare itself from Russian incursion. Russia can probably tolerate Poland as a neutral state, so long as it doesn't appear that Poland is going to attack Russia.

Russia wanting to move its military across Eastern Europe doesn't necessarily translate as they will. Because Germany is still a major power and a war with Germany could be devastating if the Germans got up and going. It's not just the USA or NATO that the Russians are worried about. It's a full-scale war with Germany, France, and/or the UK. Poland they can probably handle, but it may be just as useful to have Poland a neutral state, so long as Poland remains mostly neutral.

Russia needs to move into those linchpin states to feel secure, but it may be a safer gamble to move partway across Eastern Europe and wait or let neutral states act as buffer zones.

Keep in mind Trump's position with Saudi Arabia; we have troops there, yes--but because Saudi Arabia is paying us to do so. Trump focuses on transaction relationships. So if Poland can sweeten the pot and it's minimal to no risk for the US, then of course Trump will make that deal. Especially if it's selling military hardware to said states.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
I'm aware of some of our doings in Poland, yes. Trump, despite all media pretenses, is not a Russian ally. He has no reason to make things easy for Russia, especially at the cost of American businesses in Poland, of which there is a strong presence. My position is that when the rubber hits the road, the US is not going to be there. We might sell them hardware, intelligence, and assist with military advisors, but you are not going to see the Americans bleeding for Poland.

So long as Poland understands this and understands that the military base there is probably a passing situation, then Poland can properly prepare itself from Russian incursion. Russia can probably tolerate Poland as a neutral state, so long as it doesn't appear that Poland is going to attack Russia.

Russia wanting to move its military across Eastern Europe doesn't necessarily translate as they will. Because Germany is still a major power and a war with Germany could be devastating if the Germans got up and going. It's not just the USA or NATO that the Russians are worried about. It's a full-scale war with Germany, France, and/or the UK. Poland they can probably handle, but it may be just as useful to have Poland a neutral state, so long as Poland remains mostly neutral.

Russia needs to move into those linchpin states to feel secure, but it may be a safer gamble to move partway across Eastern Europe and wait or let neutral states act as buffer zones.

Keep in mind Trump's position with Saudi Arabia; we have troops there, yes--but because Saudi Arabia is paying us to do so. Trump focuses on transaction relationships. So if Poland can sweeten the pot and it's minimal to no risk for the US, then of course Trump will make that deal. Especially if it's selling military hardware to said states.
You do know we are basically transplanting out Army forces from Germany to Poland right? American lives are not there as advisors but as a military force.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
You do know we are basically transplanting out Army forces from Germany to Poland right? American lives are not there as advisors but as a military force.

Yes, but that does not mean that this is an aggressive step against Russia. US and German relations are below sea level at this point, because of Trump and Merkel's meeting in 2017 and the following trade wars and demands for more military spending on NATO by Trump.

The question comes down to not whether or not the US is there now or tomorrow or 2 years from now, but whether or not the US will stay if the Russians come. I have no faith in this administration or following ones, that the US will commit to a war against Russia. All those US troops do is act as a deterrence against Russian invasion. It is not assurance from invasion.

The United States is withdrawing from the world order it created and focusing on a new way of operating. Our presence in Poland will either to be (at best) to bolster it as a buffer state between Germany and Russia via deterrence or will be drawn out the moment the shooting starts or appear as it might start.

Trump is not attached to these people. If you think I'm wrong, you may look to his relations with Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Kurds, the Japanese, and South Korea. US policy is moving towards using hard and soft power for its own benefit. If Poland provides us with no security (as it clearly doesn't) and provides us with no economic benefit for the sake of our military footprint, then w won't stay.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Yes, but that does not mean that this is an aggressive step against Russia. US and German relations are below sea level at this point, because of Trump and Merkel's meeting in 2017 and the following trade wars and demands for more military spending on NATO by Trump.

The question comes down to not whether or not the US is there now or tomorrow or 2 years from now, but whether or not the US will stay if the Russians come. I have no faith in this administration or following ones, that the US will commit to a war against Russia. All those US troops do is act as a deterrence against Russian invasion. It is not assurance from invasion.

The United States is withdrawing from the world order it created and focusing on a new way of operating. Our presence in Poland will either to be (at best) to bolster it as a buffer state between Germany and Russia via deterrence or will be drawn out the moment the shooting starts or appear as it might start.

Trump is not attached to these people. If you think I'm wrong, you may look to his relations with Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Kurds, the Japanese, and South Korea. US policy is moving towards using hard and soft power for its own benefit. If Poland provides us with no security (as it clearly doesn't) and provides us with no economic benefit for the sake of our military footprint, then w won't stay.
Besides the fact I am here on South Korea right now and we are increasing the amount of people we have here, and have plans to move more people over here...

If poland was to be attacked we would not pull out, we would fight.

I know SECDEF plans on increasing number of troops in Poland and South korea to bolter a defence, and possible deterrence if it helps.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Besides the fact I am here on South Korea right now and we are increasing the amount of people we have here, and have plans to move more people over here...

Yes...right after Trump forced South Korea into a soul-crushing economic deal. Once again, if the US isn't getting paid, it isn't going to stay.

If poland was to be attacked we would not pull out, we would fight.

Right now, yes. Yes of course we would. The issue is one of time. The US is losing interest in policing other countries. Trump is NOT the new normal. He is the transition to the new normal. The president who follows Trump in 2024 is going to be even less interested in defending other countries than he is. The only CHANCE that Poland has in keeping Americans in the region is by ensuring some kind of permanent presence. And to their credit, that is what Poland is trying to do.

I do not think though, that if the Russians are intent on pressing into Poland, that we will stay and fight. No matter how much it might piss everyone in the military off to back off from Russia, the fact is that the US public is not interested and will be even less interested in ten years.

I know SECDEF plans on increasing number of troops in Poland and South korea to bolter a defence, and possible deterrence if it helps.

Which as we've seen, really doesn't mean much when the President can just withdrawal all troops because he has the final say. Trump did that in Syria. Sure, Mattis resigned in disgust, but the US is all but gone from Syria. It's now falling under the sway of the Turks and the Russians.

Do you honestly think that a President Kenya West is going to stay in 2026?

I'm not saying that the US won't remain within the region. There are good reasons to support Poland, specifically because it serves as a useful buffer state between Russia and Germany. But there is also a good many reasons as to why the US does not want to be in Poland and why the US may leave if it ever appears as through the Russians will invade.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Yes...right after Trump forced South Korea into a soul-crushing economic deal. Once again, if the US isn't getting paid, it isn't going to stay.



Right now, yes. Yes of course we would. The issue is one of time. The US is losing interest in policing other countries. Trump is NOT the new normal. He is the transition to the new normal. The president who follows Trump in 2024 is going to be even less interested in defending other countries than he is. The only CHANCE that Poland has in keeping Americans in the region is by ensuring some kind of permanent presence. And to their credit, that is what Poland is trying to do.

I do not think though, that if the Russians are intent on pressing into Poland, that we will stay and fight. No matter how much it might piss everyone in the military off to back off from Russia, the fact is that the US public is not interested and will be even less interested in ten years.



Which as we've seen, really doesn't mean much when the President can just withdrawal all troops because he has the final say. Trump did that in Syria. Sure, Mattis resigned in disgust, but the US is all but gone from Syria. It's now falling under the sway of the Turks and the Russians.

Do you honestly think that a President Kenya West is going to stay in 2026?

I'm not saying that the US won't remain within the region. There are good reasons to support Poland, specifically because it serves as a useful buffer state between Russia and Germany. But there is also a good many reasons as to why the US does not want to be in Poland and why the US may leave if it ever appears as through the Russians will invade.
South Korea is only using us for support should a war with nK happen, and to allow us to make sire China stays out same wkth Russia.

Of we were to end up at war wotb Rissia with us in Polamd, we would not pull out and would reinforce. Mainly because we are not one to leave an alley, and should Russia be getting ready to invade Poland, the wolrd stage is a lot more hostile then what you seem to think it would be.

The US is investing a lot of money to increase thier presnexe along tbe Russian border, as well as to increase countries like Poland to be able to help hold off the Russians with A small American contingent until the rest of NATO arrive.
 

Es Arcanum

Princeps Terra
Founder
If the Euros these days can't hold off the Russians in the state that they're in then they deserve to get fucking conquered.

The Russians would make an ideal ally against the Chinese. With them on board the Chinese are completely surrounded. The US and it's Pacific allies position would be ao strong as to make an ironbound deterrent.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
If the Euros these days can't hold off the Russians in the state that they're in then they deserve to get fucking conquered.

The Russians would make an ideal ally against the Chinese. With them on board the Chinese are completely surrounded. The US and it's Pacific allies position would be ao strong as to make an ironbound deterrent.
If it were to come to a war with China, Russia will choose the Allies of western Europe with the US, as it makes the most sense for them in that regard
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
If it were to come to a war with China, Russia will choose the Allies of western Europe with the US, as it makes the most sense for them in that regard
No, it wouldn't because their (especially their leadership's) hatred of the West -and the US in particular- is pretty impressive... and only in the sort of situation where everyone has to work together or die would Russia work with the West.
If the Euros these days can't hold off the Russians in the state that they're in then they deserve to get fucking conquered.

The Russians would make an ideal ally against the Chinese. With them on board the Chinese are completely surrounded. The US and it's Pacific allies position would be ao strong as to make an ironbound deterrent.
Not really, given their leadership is nostalgic, and those sorts of leaders aren't going to be allied with you for long. You are more likely to have China join forces with you against Russia than Russia join forces with you against China.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
No, it wouldn't because their (especially their leadership's) hatred of the West -and the US in particular- is pretty impressive... and only in the sort of situation where everyone has to work together or die would Russia work with the West.

Not really, given their leadership is nostalgic, and those sorts of leaders aren't going to be allied with you for long. You are more likely to have China join forces with you against Russia than Russia join forces with you against China.
So we don't work together but have a pact top wipe out China then go our separate ways, or we let China take over Russia. Simple
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
So we don't work together but have a pact top wipe out China then go our separate ways, or we let China take over Russia. Simple
While realpolitik-ish, it isn't taking into account this little thing we call precedent. Geopolitics is built upon precedent (alongside various treaties and their precedents), so you must take into account what sort of precedent you are willing to make because eventually it'll be used against your country.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
South Korea is only using us for support should a war with nK happen, and to allow us to make sire China stays out same wkth Russia.

Of course South Korea needs us as support against the North Koreans. That's why they capitulated on all of Trump's trade demands within the first year of him taking office. The US is getting out of the game of providing security to the rest of the world, because it harms our own geo-economic interests. And because we no longer have a strategic threat in the form of Russia, they have no leverage.

Of we were to end up at war wotb Rissia with us in Polamd, we would not pull out and would reinforce. Mainly because we are not one to leave an alley,

Tell that to the Kurds. We left their asses high and dry in Syria. General Mattis left the Trump administration over it. And you know what the reaction from the American public was? It was positive. When the rubber hits the road, the US will not be there for Poland. We might sell them weapons, perform a few special forces missions, or even advise them--but a ground war against a major power in a country with little to no natural barriers? No. Not a chance.

Now, Russia may not want to make that bet. I sure as hell wouldn't at this point. Because Russia's collapsing demographic would make a war with the US assisted suicide. Hell, a full-scale war with Germany would likely have that same result. But if it came to it, we would not stick around.

and should Russia be getting ready to invade Poland, the wolrd stage is a lot more hostile then what you seem to think it would be.

You a mind reader now?

We're looking at three major conflict zones forming as the result of the USA pulling away from Free Trade. In the Asian Theater between Japan and China, a boiling over conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a Russian conflict with Eastern Europe.

You know what all those areas have in common with the US? We don't have a dog in the fight. With the exception of China, the American public does not give a single, utter fuck about who wins those conflicts. And the Chinese conflict is one in which we can win with relative ease; strangle China like we did Russia and let nature take her impartial, majestic course.

The US is investing a lot of money to increase thier presnexe along tbe Russian border, as well as to increase countries like Poland to be able to help hold off the Russians with A small American contingent until the rest of NATO arrive.

What, you mean like the Thee Seas Initiative? Yes, of course the US is investing in Poland. It's a good idea to strengthen a buffer state like Poland, because it might deter a stronger Germany or a desperate Russia from trying to take the country and igniting a new European-Russian conflict. And if you make Poland difficult enough that Russia is not certain that it can reasonably take it, the Russian leadership might decide that it's a safer gamble to leave that anchor point alone and instead focusing on anchoring in other regions. After all, moving to the borders of Poland would still grant the Russians strategic depths and they could even make contingencies for taking Poland in the future, should it become necessary.

That is not the same as the US finding a land war against a desperate Russia. You soldiers may not want to leave, but you soldiers aren't in charge. The voting public is. That molded Obama toward picking drone warfare from boots on the ground and its a damn pillar of Trump's own campaign promises to end the oversea wars. Russia taking half of Poland is not a strategic threat to the US. It's a strategic threat to Europe and hence, a European problem.


If it were to come to a war with China, Russia will choose the Allies of western Europe with the US, as it makes the most sense for them in that regard

Why would they?

First, Russia has very little it can offer China in a situation where the US is going full Cold War on China. A full Cold War USA would immediately cut off all oil exports through the Indian Ocean, either by preventing it from ever leaving the Gulf States or by cutting off Chinese access at Malaysia and Indonesia. That means no oil. Even if Iran were willing to ship it across the continent where the US has more difficulty reaching, that's still a massive blow as it has to travel across Asia, through China, and to the coast. The cost would easily be 10x higher. Possibly as high as 20x if the US is threatening to bomb them or has bombed them. And it will be for oil at a slower pace and smaller deliveries. The Chinese economy would have seizure.

Now, Russia could ease the pain by selling them oil. But the Kremlin is just as likely to sell it at a mark-up or at a sweet discount, depending upon the Kremlin's goals and needs. That still would not be enough though, as the US would use SWIFT to effectively lock the Chinese out of the world market. With China suffering physical trade constraint via monetary blocks and the US navy with the first and second island chains, even if Russia supplied China with all the oil and gas it could ever want, the Chinese have nowhere to go. Except Russia, which would mean flooding their market with goods. Or begging the Russians to allow the goods to be moved through Russia and into the wider world at large.

So you might then say, "Well, that means it's in Russia's interest to side with the West", but there you would be wrong. The Russians don't trust the West. The United States was partially behind the usurping of Ukrainian leadership back in 2014. In an effort to draw Ukraine into the West. The Russians haven't forgotten and they haven't forgiven it either. The Russian response would be to play neutral as best as they can; because so long as the United States is focused on China, it is not going to be focused on Eastern Europe or even the Middle East. And that gives Moscow more room to maneuver or even extract deals from D.C..



No, it wouldn't because their (especially their leadership's) hatred of the West -and the US in particular- is pretty impressive... and only in the sort of situation where everyone has to work together or die would Russia work with the West.

Russia certainly has no love for the West, but it's most pressing issue right now is its falling demographics, its aging infrastructure, it's dying professional class, and its physical insecurity. Russia's only chance at survival is nullifying any security threat. And to do that, they need to retake lost linchpin states.

Not really, given their leadership is nostalgic, and those sorts of leaders aren't going to be allied with you for long. You are more likely to have China join forces with you against Russia than Russia join forces with you against China.

Again, I contend that their leadership is not being driven by nostalgia. It is driven by desperation. They may be nostalgic. They may even have hopes of being a super power again. But they are fighting far too many problems for that to be realistic. Their best hope right now is to hold off the collapse of their state while they try to find a way to regenerate their ruined demographic or otherwise assimilate the various minorities within their territory into "New Russians". And the best way to do that is to retake as many of the linchpin states as they possibly can, reduce the possible threat for those they can't, and try to rejuvenate themselves.

And right now, Russia's greatest threat to that plan (at the moment) isn't the Chinese, but the West. A US-Chinese conflict is one in which Putin finds God and cashes that miracle in for every red penny he can get.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
While realpolitik-ish, it isn't taking into account this little thing we call precedent. Geopolitics is built upon precedent (alongside various treaties and their precedents), so you must take into account what sort of precedent you are willing to make because eventually it'll be used against your country.
Oh of course. I am going from the perspective I have learned.
Of course South Korea needs us as support against the North Koreans. That's why they capitulated on all of Trump's trade demands within the first year of him taking office. The US is getting out of the game of providing security to the rest of the world, because it harms our own geo-economic interests. And because we no longer have a strategic threat in the form of Russia, they have no leverage.
We are literally support for a possible war with North Korea. Our main fighting force is not on pen. We will provide Naval security for the rest of the world

Tell that to the Kurds. We left their asses high and dry in Syria. General Mattis left the Trump administration over it. And you know what the reaction from the American public was? It was positive. When the rubber hits the road, the US will not be there for Poland. We might sell them weapons, perform a few special forces missions, or even advise them--but a ground war against a major power in a country with little to no natural barriers? No. Not a chance.

Now, Russia may not want to make that bet. I sure as hell wouldn't at this point. Because Russia's collapsing demographic would make a war with the US assisted suicide. Hell, a full-scale war with Germany would likely have that same result. But if it came to it, we would not stick around.
If Russia invaded Poland we would mobilize to stop it. There is no if and or buts about it. We will stay and work towards a peace, or until Russia leaves the country..

You a mind reader now?

We're looking at three major conflict zones forming as the result of the USA pulling away from Free Trade. In the Asian Theater between Japan and China, a boiling over conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and a Russian conflict with Eastern Europe.

You know what all those areas have in common with the US? We don't have a dog in the fight. With the exception of China, the American public does not give a single, utter fuck about who wins those conflicts. And the Chinese conflict is one in which we can win with relative ease; strangle China like we did Russia and let nature take her impartial, majestic course.
I am talking more then because of the Us pulling from Free trade. I am looking at more then geo political and economical stuff. I am looking at what is overall going on.

What, you mean like the Thee Seas Initiative? Yes, of course the US is investing in Poland. It's a good idea to strengthen a buffer state like Poland, because it might deter a stronger Germany or a desperate Russia from trying to take the country and igniting a new European-Russian conflict. And if you make Poland difficult enough that Russia is not certain that it can reasonably take it, the Russian leadership might decide that it's a safer gamble to leave that anchor point alone and instead focusing on anchoring in other regions. After all, moving to the borders of Poland would still grant the Russians strategic depths and they could even make contingencies for taking Poland in the future, should it become necessary.

That is not the same as the US finding a land war against a desperate Russia. You soldiers may not want to leave, but you soldiers aren't in charge. The voting public is. That molded Obama toward picking drone warfare from boots on the ground and its a damn pillar of Trump's own campaign promises to end the oversea wars. Russia taking half of Poland is not a strategic threat to the US. It's a strategic threat to Europe and hence, a European problem.
It is a damn world problem. If Euro don't step up, we will have a repeat of World war 2, with them letting Russia take all the way to damn Germany. The US wont let that happen.

Why would they?

First, Russia has very little it can offer China in a situation where the US is going full Cold War on China. A full Cold War USA would immediately cut off all oil exports through the Indian Ocean, either by preventing it from ever leaving the Gulf States or by cutting off Chinese access at Malaysia and Indonesia. That means no oil. Even if Iran were willing to ship it across the continent where the US has more difficulty reaching, that's still a massive blow as it has to travel across Asia, through China, and to the coast. The cost would easily be 10x higher. Possibly as high as 20x if the US is threatening to bomb them or has bombed them. And it will be for oil at a slower pace and smaller deliveries. The Chinese economy would have seizure.

Now, Russia could ease the pain by selling them oil. But the Kremlin is just as likely to sell it at a mark-up or at a sweet discount, depending upon the Kremlin's goals and needs. That still would not be enough though, as the US would use SWIFT to effectively lock the Chinese out of the world market. With China suffering physical trade constraint via monetary blocks and the US navy with the first and second island chains, even if Russia supplied China with all the oil and gas it could ever want, the Chinese have nowhere to go. Except Russia, which would mean flooding their market with goods. Or begging the Russians to allow the goods to be moved through Russia and into the wider world at large.

So you might then say, "Well, that means it's in Russia's interest to side with the West", but there you would be wrong. The Russians don't trust the West. The United States was partially behind the usurping of Ukrainian leadership back in 2014. In an effort to draw Ukraine into the West. The Russians haven't forgotten and they haven't forgiven it either. The Russian response would be to play neutral as best as they can; because so long as the United States is focused on China, it is not going to be focused on Eastern Europe or even the Middle East. And that gives Moscow more room to maneuver or even extract deals from D.C..
You have me here. This makes a lot of sense



Russia certainly has no love for the West, but it's most pressing issue right now is its falling demographics, its aging infrastructure, it's dying professional class, and its physical insecurity. Russia's only chance at survival is nullifying any security threat. And to do that, they need to retake lost linchpin states.
Is russia really that bad off?

Again, I contend that their leadership is not being driven by nostalgia. It is driven by desperation. They may be nostalgic. They may even have hopes of being a super power again. But they are fighting far too many problems for that to be realistic. Their best hope right now is to hold off the collapse of their state while they try to find a way to regenerate their ruined demographic or otherwise assimilate the various minorities within their territory into "New Russians". And the best way to do that is to retake as many of the linchpin states as they possibly can, reduce the possible threat for those they can't, and try to rejuvenate themselves.

And right now, Russia's greatest threat to that plan (at the moment) isn't the Chinese, but the West. A US-Chinese conflict is one in which Putin finds God and cashes that miracle in for every red penny he can get.
Should a war with US break out from China..Russia is gonna be heavily affected by it.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
We are literally support for a possible war with North Korea. Our main fighting force is not on pen. We will provide Naval security for the rest of the world

Yes. Because the South Koreans signed a one-sided trade agreement to benefit the USA. Not to mention that North Korea is a mostly exhausted country clinging desperately to a handful of crude, nuclear armed ballistic missiles. Whose leader is desperately trying to find a way to revive his country before one of his crazed relatives murders him while he plots to murder the generals who demand he keep it Commie Cool.

That is a manageable situation. One that President Trump has managed pretty well, all things considered.


If Russia invaded Poland we would mobilize to stop it. There is no if and or buts about it. We will stay and work towards a peace, or until Russia leaves the country..

No, we won't.

Because the US public does not (at large) want a war with Russia. The only ones who want a return to escalation with Russia are globalists, who are hoping to use it to bring back free trade and return to the way things were between 1990 and 20016. The US public will torpedo any potential president who openly supports engaging in oversea wars. There's a reason why people like Pelosi, Warren, Schumer, Harris, Clinton, and Biden try and talk around the subject or insist that we'll use disposable allies to fight these geopolitical battles that the US public lost interest in twelve years ago.

Russia will wait until it is certain the US will not act. Any nationalist President who gets into power (such as Trump) will choose not to act and instead treat Poland the same way the Europeans treated Ukraine. Which is to say, drop off some hardware, send some money, and start a hashtag wishing them good luck with their new Russian overlords.


I am talking more then because of the Us pulling from Free trade. I am looking at more then geo political and economical stuff. I am looking at what is overall going on.

This is what my discipline does.

The overall direction is that the USA will withdraw from free trade, creating various power vacuums across the world. It is happening and it's been happening since the Obama administration. Obama actually had Free Trade on life support. The few times that he actually tried to engage in preserving American power in the Middle East, he did so half-heartily with no troops on the ground, and it ended up blowing in his face time after time. Trump has done more than just change America's posture, he's gutted NATO, distanced himself from every Middle Eastern power except Israel, and effectively put China on notice.

The USA is pulling back. We have had almost nothing short of 20 years of bad experiences in interfering with other countries. Two entire American generations grew up as children with 9/11, the Middle Eastern Wars, and terrorist attacks as the result of interfering with other countries. All while they wallow in economic mediocrity.

It is a damn world problem. If Euro don't step up, we will have a repeat of World war 2, with them letting Russia take all the way to damn Germany. The US wont let that happen.

Putin's optimistic hope of hope is that he manages to take back half of Poland. Because Russia is not looking to restart the Cold War, but rather to make it easier to defend Russia. The European plain runs from France and into Russia. It expands like a cone, growing wider as you approach Russia. The most narrow point on the European plain is in Poland, between the mountains and the sea. The Russians have been invaded multiple times by France and Germany along the European plain. Their victory was impart due to strategic depth, the hellish cold of Russia, lots of Russians, and lots of vodka.

With the Russian ethnicity dying out, Russia does not have the troops that they need to secure Russia by sending wave after wave of their own men to wear down an invading force. And because Russia is entirely flat, that means that without numbers and military tech edge, the Russians cannot hope to retain their hold of the territory everyone acknowledges as theirs in 20 years.

They won't have enough scientists, engineers, and troops in 20 years to secure Russia's wide open borders in 10-20 years. Their best hope is to use the army they have now to expand into the most narrow regions in other states to prevent an invader. And believe it or not, their greatest fear is not Germany, France, Poland, or the United States. It's Turkey. That's part of why Russia is fucking around in Syria. It keeps the Turks focused on the Kurds and that means they're looking south, not North, East, and West.

Now, the natural response to this information is "why doesn't Russia just try and make a peace deal?". The answer is that the Russians doesn't trust the US. And for good reason. The Obama Administration gave support to Ukraine trying to join the EU, which forced Moscow to act to protect its only warm water port. That's not to mention all the minorities within their oh-so-cheery-state who would be more than happy to pay the Russians back for all the kindness of the past several centuries.


You have me here. This makes a lot of sense

Russia is really not playing around. Putin and the leadership know that if Russia does not find a way to slow their collapse, the entire country will shatter and they'll probably be devoured.


Is russia really that bad off?

Yes.

The Soviet collapse caused a massive healthcare and educational crises that was not addressed until after Putin came to power. Their most experienced and gifted engineers and scientists are all reaching the mortality rate. It's not that they're retiring; they're literally working themselves into the grave. Their population is inflicted with highly resistant HIV that has dealt a huge blow to the public. Attempts at encouraging growing birthrates have failed and now minorities are quickly catching up to ethnic Russians. The dropping birthrates in Europe and China will mean that soon even gas money won't keep Russia flush with cash. And that was before COVID-19 saw the Saudi's directly going after their energy market. And on top of that, now even the US is threatening to get in on the action.

Russia can defend itself now. But when they don't have enough engineers and scientists to keep their armor, jets, and ships moving and fighting, that will change. When their army is undermanned or filled with ethnic minorities who hate their commanders, that will change. When their gas money starts to run dry and the Russian state is no longer able to pay people, that will change. When the Turks to the south finally awaken from their 100 year long hiatus of being a major power, that will change. When Putin's body gives out on him, plunging the entire political oligarchy into chaos and infighting, that will change.

Russia is desperate. And that makes it far, far more dangerous in some ways than even then during the Cold War. Be thankful that Putin is as restrained as he is. He's worked to transform Turkey into an energy hub, has worked to use geo-economics to bring most of the former Soviet States under Russian influence, and would probably settle for a sort of Russian-led Eastern European bloc, so long as Russian troops protect the linchpin states from "the outside".

Should a war with US break out from China..Russia is gonna be heavily affected by it.

They will, objectively they will suffer in some way, most likely economically, but the geo-economic loss would be far offset by the new geo-strategic reality. Which is that the focus of the United States would shift from Russia's near-abroad to China. In other words, while Russia will objectively suffer more damage from the loss of Chinese business than the USA, the US would suffer a larger relative loss in geo-strategic mobility, because of the sheer size and power of China. Even if China lacks projection capabilities.

That means that the Russians can play more in Syria and distract the Turks. It means that if the Americans are worried about fighting a war on the Chinese coast, they are not going to be too eager to start a war against Russia in Eastern Europe. Especially when most Eastern European countries are economically, heavily reliant upon the Russians to begin with. Hell, Germany is addicted to Russian gas. That's why despite Russia's actions in Ukraine, the Germans have done very little about it. All their economic punishments were mostly symbolic.

I doubt Putin wants there to be a war between the US and China, but he would do everything in his power to exploit the situation.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Lot of Legal stuff there. National Guard can be deployed along the border, but federal troops can only stand guard, and be watch men there. A SGT in my unit when stationed at Ft Polk, was sent to the border to work with BP and all he was allowed to do was sit in a vehicle or stand outside and watch for people. They are also in full kit in the middle of the day.

US forces can not be deployed along the border or in the US at all without a lot of hoops being jumped through by the President.

Also, Border Patrol needs more people.
Posse only applies to Army and Air Force We could absolutely put USMC on the border entierly legally. Besides by any rational definition the border is a national crisis. Activate the Insurrection act and militarize the border. When the UN gets mad point and laugh at thier impotence. While kickingthem out of NYC and pulling thier funding.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Posse only applies to Army and Air Force We could absolutely put USMC on the border entierly legally. Besides by any rational definition the border is a national crisis. Activate the Insurrection act and militarize the border. When the UN gets mad point and laugh at thier impotence. While kickingthem out of NYC and pulling thier funding.
@The Original Sixth i will respond to yours when on computer. Was working on a reply there.

For dragon, it is not that simple. Also no the rule applies to USMC as well. All DOD branches can only be used with executive permission and when certain acts are invoked.

And no the border does not count as a national crisis as it stands. Only when in danger from say a caravan could you reasonably make those claims.

Doing that to the UN could potentially hurt our stances with some of our allies, as well as could make doing stuff, for instance in Korea, harder as it is a joint effort.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
@The Original Sixth i will respond to yours when on computer. Was working on a reply there.

For dragon, it is not that simple. Also no the rule applies to USMC as well. All DOD branches can only be used with executive permission and when certain acts are invoked.

And no the border does not count as a national crisis as it stands. Only when in danger from say a caravan could you reasonably make those claims.

Doing that to the UN could potentially hurt our stances with some of our allies, as well as could make doing stuff, for instance in Korea, harder as it is a joint effort.
It'd be better if it was harder then sorry the UN needs to go. If it makes stuff harder oh well being attached to that is frankly digustsing. Also on posse the Navy's website says it doesn't so prove they do. Not as a dick head demand just as well my info says different.
 

Aaron Fox

Well-known member
It'd be better if it was harder then sorry the UN needs to go. If it makes stuff harder oh well being attached to that is frankly digustsing. Also on posse the Navy's website says it doesn't so prove they do. Not as a dick head demand just as well my info says different.
It's one of the few things that is preventing more wars. Get rid of the UN, you'll have the planet start looking like Strangereal with its world wars every decade.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top