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

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
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.
I get that you believe this and that's fine. I don't not that it matters we aren't going to withdraw. So it's all just conjecture. Leaving that aside though the only powers who matter even in the UN. Are the P5 + Germany and Japan everyone else are chess pieces. We're probably going into a derail though so start a thread I'll respond.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
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.
I mean his deal fell through and ROK citizens blame him for the failed negotiations.


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.
If Poland is attacked we will stay there and fight until Poland is safe, especially if soldiers stationed there are killed in the initial attack.

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.
We are also opening the world up to World War 3: Europe does jack and shit. Though I do get your last point, I was born in 1999. I don't remember 9/11, neither do people younger then me.

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.
They are fairly up there in military.
I also did not know this about Russia, that is valuable information.

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.
This is why they should ally with the Damn US. We will prevent them from being invaded! We will also have an ally against CHina. That is the two biggest reason.

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".
This is perhaps why the US sees them has the major threat they are still because they are unstable

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.
That makes sense, but should a war breakout between US and China, who has signed a pact with both Pakistan an dIran, would be a bone in the side of Russia that way, and India, the other major threat to china to the south. Either wy Russia is going to be dragged into said war
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
That still would not be enough though, as the US would use SWIFT to effectively lock the Chinese out of the world market.
It would be a nuclear option though, as every economy of note would then seek an alternative to weaponized SWIFT and with current tech it's not that hard anymore, which could lead to very fragmented international monetary system.

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.
Really? The world is not a neocon wet dream, with slapstick evildoers hiding behind every tree, the trope of evil Russians riding their tank horde all the way to Rhine if USA turns away even for a moment, is pants on head retarded and TOS explained in detail why. Russia is no state to do a war of conquest and it won't be in condition to do so for quite some time. The only ones who believe otherwise are lobbyists for military-industrial complex and kids who played too much CoD.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
It would be a nuclear option though, as every economy of note would then seek an alternative to weaponized SWIFT and with current tech it's not that hard anymore, which could lead to very fragmented international monetary system.


Really? The world is not a neocon wet dream, with slapstick evildoers hiding behind every tree, the trope of evil Russians riding their tank horde all the way to Rhine if USA turns away even for a moment, is pants on head retarded and TOS explained in detail why. Russia is no state to do a war of conquest and it won't be in condition to do so for quite some time. The only ones who believe otherwise are lobbyists for military-industrial complex and kids who played too much CoD.
Besides the fact that besides France, most countries in Europe or shrinking their militaries? UK is shrinking their army, Germany is as well. Most of the countries in between don't have that large of a standing Army. Poland will be there eventually, I am going off facts I have seen on highside, and using Open source
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
Have you noticed something about how Russia fights it's wars since the fall of Soviet Union? They only fight when someone invites them in. They don't go charging into neighbouring countries shouting ''gib clay'', just because opposition is weak. They don't have the manpower to actually hold the ground you dream of them conquering and defend their borders at the same time. They can fight limited conflict for political gains or full out war for national protection, but they do not have staying power for full out occupation of a nation, like USA does and they know it, especially since unlike USA they do actually need armed forces to defend their borders, they can't give China a reason for temptation.

In short Russia can tenatively afford a decent sized standing army, but it can't afford a conquest. Wet dreams of Russian hordes are just that, a wet dreams.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Have you noticed something about how Russia fights it's wars since the fall of Soviet Union? They only fight when someone invites them in. They don't go charging into neighbouring countries shouting ''gib clay'', just because opposition is weak. They don't have the manpower to actually hold the ground you dream of them conquering and defend their borders at the same time. They can fight limited conflict for political gains or full out war for national protection, but they do not have staying power for full out occupation of a nation, like USA does and they know it, especially since unlike USA they do actually need armed forces to defend their borders, they can't give China a reason for temptation.

In short Russia can tenatively afford a decent sized standing army, but it can't afford a conquest. Wet dreams of Russian hordes are just that, a wet dreams.
it is something I am paying attention to even though it is not my mission for a reason
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
I mean his deal fell through and ROK citizens blame him for the failed negotiations.

What, you expect them to blame themselves?

The deal was always going to fall through. There was no way that North Korea was actually going to give up those nuclear weapons. What Trump did do however, was convince the North Koreans to cease testing on ballistic missile technology. Because the greater threat wasn't that North Korea would nuke South Korea or Japan, it was that they'd be able to target the US mainland. Trump has done this before, supplementing the term "nuclear weapon" when he's more worried about the ballistic missiles. He did the same with Iran. He wasn't worried about them developing the nuke, he was worried about them developing their ballistic missile technology/inventory. Because those ballistic missiles were/are going to be used against any opponent Iran targets, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The second thing that Trump accomplished, was softening relations between North Korea and South Korea, as well as the USA. North Korea has always feared that we would go in and replace their regime. Trump made it clear that the US could and would match North Korea on any military escalation, up to and including nuclear weapons. Since the primary purpose of those nukes were to both protect North Korea and Kim himself (it was part of a domestic gambit--it just attracted Trump's attention in the way that it didn't Obama's), it would defeat the purpose to escalate the conflict so high that North Korea is strangled by an American encirclement or destroyed by the USA launching hundreds of nuclear missiles because North Korea fired a standard missile at South Korea.

If Poland is attacked we will stay there and fight until Poland is safe, especially if soldiers stationed there are killed in the initial attack.

Yes, if US troops stationed there are killed, the US can't back down. Which is why Russia will avoid striking US positions at all costs. The US President in the future will then slowly withdraw American troops, to avoid a war that he fears will get him kicked out of office. And the Russians, knowing the US is there, will wait for an excuse to invade. Russian minorities in danger or civil unrest. All Russia needs is a pretense and all the US needs is a pretense and a clear highway.

Poland is more of a bluff. That's not to say it isn't a good bluff; Russia can't win a war against a major power at this point. So what Russia is doing is following the path of least resistance. If it can convince states like Ukraine to essentially be its strategic and economic partners, that's good enough for Moscow. If they have to wait until a crises to install a puppet government or take charge, then they will do that too. So bluffing Russia with a US supported Poland acting as a buffer state between Germany and Russia is not a bad play.

All I'm saying is that it is a bluff.

We are also opening the world up to World War 3: Europe does jack and shit.

If there is a World War III, Europe will be the cause. Both world wars were started by Europeans fighting Europeans. Russia always became involved, because of the European plain, but the wars always originate within Europe itself. The First World War happened because the Austria-Hungary Empire declared war on Serbia over an assassination. And because of the network of alliances that had been formed before the incident to create a balance of power between the European states, all the major powers (including Russia) were drawn into the conflict. And of course, the Second World War was caused by the Germans going batshit.

All of those conflicts however, have a common central issue; the Germans. Germany was once a border region composed of various small states that competed with each other. It helped to separate Russia from Europe. After Napoleon ran through the region however, the German states stitched themselves together and unified under a single state. What was once various small states suddenly became a state whose size rivaled that of France, but whose geography was far more efficient and whose people were far more competitive. The result was a regional hegemony that challenged France. And worse, thanks to the European plain, had a direct highway to France.

Europe never found a solution to balancing the industrial and economic might of Germany with the other powers. That's impart why the French pushed for the EU and German membership. Because they'd hope to pull Germany into a subordinate role and harness their economic and industrial power for France's own personal benefit. And that worked because Germany had been split between the US and the Soviets during the Cold War. But after reunification of Germany in 1990, the German economy and industrial might began to grow so large that France couldn't control it and now they're the junior partner at the head of the EU.

The same problem has arrived on the world stage again, right under our noses. Germany's industrial and economic power has spread itself throughout all of Europe. South Europe is impart so impoverished because Germany out competes them on efficiency and because they share a monetary value, they can't hope to compete on price point. Germany is skittish of military power because of its past and its current position; without firing a single shot, they accomplish the geo-economic goal that they'd been hoping for, for well over a century. And that has turned a lot of countries within the EU against the Germans. And when the US leaves Europe, there will be no one left to promise either side that they won't be invaded.

Though I do get your last point, I was born in 1999. I don't remember 9/11, neither do people younger then me.

Well, that would make you Gen Z (Zoomer) then, not Gen Y (Millennials). And even while you don't remember 9/11, you grew up with what followed; war in the Middle East. Unpopular wars where Americans began to feel like imperial masters, not the heralds of freedom. All while our economy staggers under the weight of supporting rival economies. You yourself may not have an issue with it, but this is a cultural issue that you have grown up in. And while Gen Z is mostly disengaged with politics (save for liberals and commies), the general discussion of the US between the Millennial and Boomer generations suggests that Gen Z is not going to be all that excited in oversea wars.


They are fairly up there in military.
I also did not know this about Russia, that is valuable information.

They are among the best, but that requires a lot of support. If Russia had the means of sustaining its demographics, this probably wouldn't be an issue. It may not become an issue, because advancing technology has favored smaller numbers, but more expensive hardware. So Russia could still potentially hold off smaller attackers. So long as they aren't supported by strong allies such as Turkey, France, or Germany.

On the other hand, we've seen what happened in the Middle East when the US tried to shape a battle without boots on the ground; you either need a proficient proxy to do the battles for you or you manage only to blunt the enemy force. Infantry is by far, one of the most important aspects of warfare, even in the modern era.


This is why they should ally with the Damn US. We will prevent them from being invaded! We will also have an ally against CHina. That is the two biggest reason.

But they don't trust us. We've had about 70 years of geo-strategic competition between our countries. That won't just evaporate in four years. You also have to keep in mind that even if Trump and Putin get along well, the media and opposing Democrats will attack Putin and Russia as a means of going after Trump. The US media demonized Russia the past four years, asserting they rigged our election and that Trump is their puppet. And that media is strongly connected to the current Democratic party. And if the Democrats win, you can bet that they will take an aggressive stance against Russia, if only to help cover for their own incompetence.

And more importantly, they can't believe our promise to protect them. Because we are pulling out of the Free Trade game. And that means there will be a power vacuum and that means Russia has to deal with not just America being there now, but what happens when America is gone or unwilling to fully engage. Our promise to Europe won't hold, why would it hold for Russia?

This is perhaps why the US sees them has the major threat they are still because they are unstable

Wish that were the case, but it isn't.

Remember, the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs have ran DC for ~70 years. The idea of containing Russia and its influence is that old. Those are the policies that they grew up with, supported, paid for, and sent young men to die for. Some even fought in the wars to contain Russia, losing limbs and/or friends in the process. Just as you are certain that we would never abandon the Polls, so are they certain that they will never abandon the sacrifices of the people who died for this cause, military and civilian. People like Joe Biden and John McCain? Grew up during the Vietnam War. They are very much aware of what the US did to try and stop the Russians, as well as maintain world order.

The globalists are not interested in protecting Russia. Because Russia has been their nemesis for the better part of a century. And they most certainly won't do so now, because Russia dared to upend the world order. Syria would not have required US forces to go in had Russia not intervened to make the disaster worse (which they did intentionally). Nor would Iran be as much a thorn in the side of the US were it not for Russia constantly supporting them. Nor would China be so able to challenge the US Navy were it not for the Russians supplying them with advanced weapons platforms. Nor would they look so foolish after having supported Ukraine's move towards the West, had Russia simply accepted that they would never have a warm water port ever again.

The globalists will at best, allow Russia to wither from the inside and more than likely, will find excuses to intervene and take away what little remains to the Russian people.

Trump and nationalists do not view Russia as a threat. Or even as economic competition. So Trump and nationalists are willing to make a deal with Russia, so America can take its troops and go home. That would create a power vacuum that in turn might threaten Russia itself, but it's a much better option than the globalists who will strangle Russia for daring to defy them.



That makes sense, but should a war breakout between US and China, who has signed a pact with both Pakistan and Iran, would be a bone in the side of Russia that way, and India, the other major threat to china to the south. Either wy Russia is going to be dragged into said war

Why?

Think about this for a moment. Pakistan and Iran are junior partners in any sort of alliance with China. Certainly they might send a symbolic force to show solidarity, but China has all the manpower it could ask for, it has superior technology than its allies, and it has them in far greater numbers. For heaven's sake, China is boasting proto-Gen 5 aircraft while Iran is flying around a drone, pretending it's a Gen 5 aircraft, while it's actual aircraft is primarily composed of F-4s and F-14s. Of which, they're running out of because said fighters keep taking swan dives into the local geography due to US sanctions.

All Pakistan and Iran can do is promise to supply China with oil and markets. Oil is easy, so long as the US allows them to ship through the seas. Which it won't. They can go for a land route, but the US can still take out their oil facilities. Something Iran is particularly exposed to. Either way, Russia doesn't have a dog in the fight. Russia will do everything short of actually helping. They'll send some gas (at various price points, depending on Russian needs), they'll sell them weapons, they'll send military advisors (with intentionally dubious advice at times), they'll send in some engineers and special forces (but rarely if ever put them in harm's way), they'll protest and denounce the US (but not too loudly), and Putin will probably not poison their tea when they come over to talk politics.

What Russia won't do is actually help them. And if you doubt me, you can look to Syria. The Syrian regime is by far, one of Russia's strongest and longest standing allies. When they were facing a civil war, the Russians came and helped. And by helped, I mean they shifted the war from a mostly entrenched one, to a mobile one. That leveled the playing field for the rebel fighters and the ISIS cells. And the Russians did so intentionally. Why? Why do that to a long time ally?

Because of one major demographic; the Kurds. The Kurds are spread throughout several Middle-Eastern countries. Including Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. And those three are key. The US would arm the Kurds in hopes of breaking the Syrian regime and kicking Russia out of the region entirely. Except by arming the Kurds in Syria, the US was also in effect arming the Kurd terrorists in Turkey--a long-standing NATO ally. And by encouraging the formation of a Kurd nation just south of the Turkey border, the US was in effect, allowing an unacceptable threat to Turkish security to form. Not just allowing, but encouraging.

Sacrificing Syria's own security allowed the Russians to turn the Turks against the Americans and distracting them from Russia's more distant moves in the north. Look at the result of this policy, even after Trump took over; the Turks are out of the F-35 program and have purchased S-400 pieces. Russia is helping to transform Turkey into an energy hub. If Clinton had been put into office and she had gotten her way with supporting the Kurds, Turkey might have come in firing at American soldiers.

Russia will not help the Chinese, Russia will exploit the Chinese for their own benefit. They'll shift the war to be as destructive and as distracting to both the US and Chinese as they possibly can, without getting their own hands dirty. And while the US and China are locked in war, Russia will move against Eastern Europe.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
The question is in the title. What would the various nations in NATO that don't meet the 2% of their GDP that they're supposed to as per NATO bylaws be able to afford if they did so. Moreover how would you force them to increase their defense spending? Personally I would cut all logistical support that the members of NATO that met their requirements give them

Croatia could definitely afford a decent military - army, navy and an air force. It was 1,3% in 2019.
 

Spartan303

In Captain America we Trust!
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Osaul
The question is in the title. What would the various nations in NATO that don't meet the 2% of their GDP that they're supposed to as per NATO bylaws be able to afford if they did so. Moreover how would you force them to increase their defense spending? Personally I would cut all logistical support that the members of NATO that met their requirements give them


NATO would be pretty much unstoppable and wouldn't have anything to threaten it. Point blank.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
What, you expect them to blame themselves?

The deal was always going to fall through. There was no way that North Korea was actually going to give up those nuclear weapons. What Trump did do however, was convince the North Koreans to cease testing on ballistic missile technology. Because the greater threat wasn't that North Korea would nuke South Korea or Japan, it was that they'd be able to target the US mainland. Trump has done this before, supplementing the term "nuclear weapon" when he's more worried about the ballistic missiles. He did the same with Iran. He wasn't worried about them developing the nuke, he was worried about them developing their ballistic missile technology/inventory. Because those ballistic missiles were/are going to be used against any opponent Iran targets, such as Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The second thing that Trump accomplished, was softening relations between North Korea and South Korea, as well as the USA. North Korea has always feared that we would go in and replace their regime. Trump made it clear that the US could and would match North Korea on any military escalation, up to and including nuclear weapons. Since the primary purpose of those nukes were to both protect North Korea and Kim himself (it was part of a domestic gambit--it just attracted Trump's attention in the way that it didn't Obama's), it would defeat the purpose to escalate the conflict so high that North Korea is strangled by an American encirclement or destroyed by the USA launching hundreds of nuclear missiles because North Korea fired a standard missile at South Korea.
Except that is not what we are seeing here, as well as the relations between north and South korea have fallen through this year, COVID has not helped either.

I cant really comment more on this sadly. Not that I don't want to but I cant.

Yes, if US troops stationed there are killed, the US can't back down. Which is why Russia will avoid striking US positions at all costs. The US President in the future will then slowly withdraw American troops, to avoid a war that he fears will get him kicked out of office. And the Russians, knowing the US is there, will wait for an excuse to invade. Russian minorities in danger or civil unrest. All Russia needs is a pretense and all the US needs is a pretense and a clear highway.

Poland is more of a bluff. That's not to say it isn't a good bluff; Russia can't win a war against a major power at this point. So what Russia is doing is following the path of least resistance. If it can convince states like Ukraine to essentially be its strategic and economic partners, that's good enough for Moscow. If they have to wait until a crises to install a puppet government or take charge, then they will do that too. So bluffing Russia with a US supported Poland acting as a buffer state between Germany and Russia is not a bad play.

All I'm saying is that it is a bluff.
Our bases are going to be closer to the border, and we will be actively making out Bluff that in order to invade Poland Americans have to die.

If there is a World War III, Europe will be the cause. Both world wars were started by Europeans fighting Europeans. Russia always became involved, because of the European plain, but the wars always originate within Europe itself. The First World War happened because the Austria-Hungary Empire declared war on Serbia over an assassination. And because of the network of alliances that had been formed before the incident to create a balance of power between the European states, all the major powers (including Russia) were drawn into the conflict. And of course, the Second World War was caused by the Germans going batshit.

All of those conflicts however, have a common central issue; the Germans. Germany was once a border region composed of various small states that competed with each other. It helped to separate Russia from Europe. After Napoleon ran through the region however, the German states stitched themselves together and unified under a single state. What was once various small states suddenly became a state whose size rivaled that of France, but whose geography was far more efficient and whose people were far more competitive. The result was a regional hegemony that challenged France. And worse, thanks to the European plain, had a direct highway to France.

Europe never found a solution to balancing the industrial and economic might of Germany with the other powers. That's impart why the French pushed for the EU and German membership. Because they'd hope to pull Germany into a subordinate role and harness their economic and industrial power for France's own personal benefit. And that worked because Germany had been split between the US and the Soviets during the Cold War. But after reunification of Germany in 1990, the German economy and industrial might began to grow so large that France couldn't control it and now they're the junior partner at the head of the EU.

The same problem has arrived on the world stage again, right under our noses. Germany's industrial and economic power has spread itself throughout all of Europe. South Europe is impart so impoverished because Germany out competes them on efficiency and because they share a monetary value, they can't hope to compete on price point. Germany is skittish of military power because of its past and its current position; without firing a single shot, they accomplish the geo-economic goal that they'd been hoping for, for well over a century. And that has turned a lot of countries within the EU against the Germans. And when the US leaves Europe, there will be no one left to promise either side that they won't be invaded.
That makes a lot of sense, though China is another focus point for World war 3, with it pushing against India, possibly going to invade Taiwan. Making allies with Iran and Pakistan.

Well, that would make you Gen Z (Zoomer) then, not Gen Y (Millennials). And even while you don't remember 9/11, you grew up with what followed; war in the Middle East. Unpopular wars where Americans began to feel like imperial masters, not the heralds of freedom. All while our economy staggers under the weight of supporting rival economies. You yourself may not have an issue with it, but this is a cultural issue that you have grown up in. And while Gen Z is mostly disengaged with politics (save for liberals and commies), the general discussion of the US between the Millennial and Boomer generations suggests that Gen Z is not going to be all that excited in oversea wars.
Gen Z has a lot of people joining into the military, sure for other reasons besides volunteering to serve, but there is a large amount of them joining up. You would be surprised about how much we want to go to combat.

Also I thought everyone knew I was a Z not a Y

They are among the best, but that requires a lot of support. If Russia had the means of sustaining its demographics, this probably wouldn't be an issue. It may not become an issue, because advancing technology has favored smaller numbers, but more expensive hardware. So Russia could still potentially hold off smaller attackers. So long as they aren't supported by strong allies such as Turkey, France, or Germany.

On the other hand, we've seen what happened in the Middle East when the US tried to shape a battle without boots on the ground; you either need a proficient proxy to do the battles for you or you manage only to blunt the enemy force. Infantry is by far, one of the most important aspects of warfare, even in the modern era.
Oh I know how important infantry is and will always be.

But they don't trust us. We've had about 70 years of geo-strategic competition between our countries. That won't just evaporate in four years. You also have to keep in mind that even if Trump and Putin get along well, the media and opposing Democrats will attack Putin and Russia as a means of going after Trump. The US media demonized Russia the past four years, asserting they rigged our election and that Trump is their puppet. And that media is strongly connected to the current Democratic party. And if the Democrats win, you can bet that they will take an aggressive stance against Russia, if only to help cover for their own incompetence.

And more importantly, they can't believe our promise to protect them. Because we are pulling out of the Free Trade game. And that means there will be a power vacuum and that means Russia has to deal with not just America being there now, but what happens when America is gone or unwilling to fully engage. Our promise to Europe won't hold, why would it hold for Russia?
A long lasting unstoppable combined military super power...

Wish that were the case, but it isn't.

Remember, the Neo-Cons and Neo-Libs have ran DC for ~70 years. The idea of containing Russia and its influence is that old. Those are the policies that they grew up with, supported, paid for, and sent young men to die for. Some even fought in the wars to contain Russia, losing limbs and/or friends in the process. Just as you are certain that we would never abandon the Polls, so are they certain that they will never abandon the sacrifices of the people who died for this cause, military and civilian. People like Joe Biden and John McCain? Grew up during the Vietnam War. They are very much aware of what the US did to try and stop the Russians, as well as maintain world order.

The globalists are not interested in protecting Russia. Because Russia has been their nemesis for the better part of a century. And they most certainly won't do so now, because Russia dared to upend the world order. Syria would not have required US forces to go in had Russia not intervened to make the disaster worse (which they did intentionally). Nor would Iran be as much a thorn in the side of the US were it not for Russia constantly supporting them. Nor would China be so able to challenge the US Navy were it not for the Russians supplying them with advanced weapons platforms. Nor would they look so foolish after having supported Ukraine's move towards the West, had Russia simply accepted that they would never have a warm water port ever again.

The globalists will at best, allow Russia to wither from the inside and more than likely, will find excuses to intervene and take away what little remains to the Russian people.

Trump and nationalists do not view Russia as a threat. Or even as economic competition. So Trump and nationalists are willing to make a deal with Russia, so America can take its troops and go home. That would create a power vacuum that in turn might threaten Russia itself, but it's a much better option than the globalists who will strangle Russia for daring to defy them.
Wow. I don't know much about the political or economical landscape. Just the military


Why?

Think about this for a moment. Pakistan and Iran are junior partners in any sort of alliance with China. Certainly they might send a symbolic force to show solidarity, but China has all the manpower it could ask for, it has superior technology than its allies, and it has them in far greater numbers. For heaven's sake, China is boasting proto-Gen 5 aircraft while Iran is flying around a drone, pretending it's a Gen 5 aircraft, while it's actual aircraft is primarily composed of F-4s and F-14s. Of which, they're running out of because said fighters keep taking swan dives into the local geography due to US sanctions.

All Pakistan and Iran can do is promise to supply China with oil and markets. Oil is easy, so long as the US allows them to ship through the seas. Which it won't. They can go for a land route, but the US can still take out their oil facilities. Something Iran is particularly exposed to. Either way, Russia doesn't have a dog in the fight. Russia will do everything short of actually helping. They'll send some gas (at various price points, depending on Russian needs), they'll sell them weapons, they'll send military advisors (with intentionally dubious advice at times), they'll send in some engineers and special forces (but rarely if ever put them in harm's way), they'll protest and denounce the US (but not too loudly), and Putin will probably not poison their tea when they come over to talk politics.

What Russia won't do is actually help them. And if you doubt me, you can look to Syria. The Syrian regime is by far, one of Russia's strongest and longest standing allies. When they were facing a civil war, the Russians came and helped. And by helped, I mean they shifted the war from a mostly entrenched one, to a mobile one. That leveled the playing field for the rebel fighters and the ISIS cells. And the Russians did so intentionally. Why? Why do that to a long time ally?

Because of one major demographic; the Kurds. The Kurds are spread throughout several Middle-Eastern countries. Including Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. And those three are key. The US would arm the Kurds in hopes of breaking the Syrian regime and kicking Russia out of the region entirely. Except by arming the Kurds in Syria, the US was also in effect arming the Kurd terrorists in Turkey--a long-standing NATO ally. And by encouraging the formation of a Kurd nation just south of the Turkey border, the US was in effect, allowing an unacceptable threat to Turkish security to form. Not just allowing, but encouraging.

Sacrificing Syria's own security allowed the Russians to turn the Turks against the Americans and distracting them from Russia's more distant moves in the north. Look at the result of this policy, even after Trump took over; the Turks are out of the F-35 program and have purchased S-400 pieces. Russia is helping to transform Turkey into an energy hub. If Clinton had been put into office and she had gotten her way with supporting the Kurds, Turkey might have come in firing at American soldiers.

Russia will not help the Chinese, Russia will exploit the Chinese for their own benefit. They'll shift the war to be as destructive and as distracting to both the US and Chinese as they possibly can, without getting their own hands dirty. And while the US and China are locked in war, Russia will move against Eastern Europe.
Huh good point. Good point. I am again thinking militarily not politically or economically. Which is my problem
NATO would be pretty much unstoppable and wouldn't have anything to threaten it. Point blank.
Yeah basically
Tell it to South Vietnam. States have no friends, only interests.
Vietnam was because we weren't allowed to do war...we were only allowed to go to then come back. Not capture..
 

Sixgun McGurk

Well-known member
Except that is not what we are seeing here, as well as the relations between north and South korea have fallen through this year, COVID has not helped either.

I cant really comment more on this sadly. Not that I don't want to but I cant.


Our bases are going to be closer to the border, and we will be actively making out Bluff that in order to invade Poland Americans have to die.


That makes a lot of sense, though China is another focus point for World war 3, with it pushing against India, possibly going to invade Taiwan. Making allies with Iran and Pakistan.


Gen Z has a lot of people joining into the military, sure for other reasons besides volunteering to serve, but there is a large amount of them joining up. You would be surprised about how much we want to go to combat.

Also I thought everyone knew I was a Z not a Y


Oh I know how important infantry is and will always be.


A long lasting unstoppable combined military super power...


Wow. I don't know much about the political or economical landscape. Just the military



Huh good point. Good point. I am again thinking militarily not politically or economically. Which is my problem

Yeah basically

Vietnam was because we weren't allowed to do war...we were only allowed to go to then come back. Not capture..
That is all the US has been 'allowed' to do since we got into the World Police business in 1952. My family has been on the front line of that and as a result is sadly reduced. Gen Z wants to go into 'combat' because you think combat is safe, where you hold all the cards and the giant airstrike is a phone call away, but the technology is changing and that comfortable lead is going away. Now is the time to choose our battles wisely and only fight for solid gain. We lost a huge amount of industrial power from 1990-2016 when the manufacturing sector was sacrificed for the globalist vision and for a few scumbags getting rich quick. That manufacturing was the sole basis for our hegemony. Now that perceived hegemony is gone and good riddance. We can't afford to fight for other countries. GHWB's creepy 'new world order' is a bust and we are in much the same position as Russia with much the same goal.

.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
That is all the US has been 'allowed' to do since we got into the World Police business in 1952. My family has been on the front line of that and as a result is sadly reduced. Gen Z wants to go into 'combat' because you think combat is safe, where you hold all the cards and the giant airstrike is a phone call away, but the technology is changing and that comfortable lead is going away. Now is the time to choose our battles wisely and only fight for solid gain. We lost a huge amount of industrial power from 1990-2016 when the manufacturing sector was sacrificed for the globalist vision and for a few scumbags getting rich quick. That manufacturing was the sole basis for our hegemony. Now that perceived hegemony is gone and good riddance. We can't afford to fight for other countries. GHWB's creepy 'new world order' is a bust and we are in much the same position as Russia with much the same goal.

.
You obviously don't know anything about what modern military life is like.
A lot of us seek combat because it is a break from the monotony of training, doing useless things to make the officers happy,

We want combat because we actually get to do our jobs. Me being MI, I only do my job when in combat, because even my single source is not useful in any meaningful way outside of combat.

The gener aspect of my job though, is a knowledge of enemy capabilities and the like, and knowing how they do things and how to defeat sakd enemy's.

A military that does not ever see combat is a military that is useless. Training only does so well, and you can only do so much as well. Most training is the same every time with a few extra things that change every now and then. Do.you know what they say especially in the level where one plans wjat goes on?
The best laid plans work until the shooting starts.

We know how wars will be fought, and we can only train so much before we start just doing the same thing while we do it. I know Soldiers that literally know when they can get away eith sleeping or playing on thier phones in the field because they have done that exercise so many times.

Without combat we are a bynch of good looking well equipped soldiers with training that does its job.
If it wasn't for NCOs and Officers with combat experience these training and exercises would mean Jack and shit...
 

Sixgun McGurk

Well-known member
You obviously don't know anything about what modern military life is like.
A lot of us seek combat because it is a break from the monotony of training, doing useless things to make the officers happy,

We want combat because we actually get to do our jobs. Me being MI, I only do my job when in combat, because even my single source is not useful in any meaningful way outside of combat.

The gener aspect of my job though, is a knowledge of enemy capabilities and the like, and knowing how they do things and how to defeat sakd enemy's.

A military that does not ever see combat is a military that is useless. Training only does so well, and you can only do so much as well. Most training is the same every time with a few extra things that change every now and then. Do.you know what they say especially in the level where one plans wjat goes on?
The best laid plans work until the shooting starts.

We know how wars will be fought, and we can only train so much before we start just doing the same thing while we do it. I know Soldiers that literally know when they can get away eith sleeping or playing on thier phones in the field because they have done that exercise so many times.

Without combat we are a bynch of good looking well equipped soldiers with training that does its job.
If it wasn't for NCOs and Officers with combat experience these training and exercises would mean Jack and shit...
You should go visit a VA hospital and talk to the vets. This isn't a movie and the days when some piece of shit globalist politician can send people off to die in useless wars for domestic political reasons and Haliburton is over. I don't hate Koreans, but I don't love them either. Do you know the difference between North and South Korea? North Korea isn't driving GM, Ford and Chrysler, along with all those good industrial jobs, out of the US and Hyundai-Kia is. We aren't paying for wars to save competitors anymore and that's just the fact.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
You should go visit a VA hospital and talk to the vets. This isn't a movie and the days when some piece of shit globalist politician can send people off to die in useless wars for domestic political reasons and Haliburton is over. I don't hate Koreans, but I don't love them either. Do you know the difference between North and South Korea? North Korea isn't driving GM, Ford and Chrysler, along with all those good industrial jobs, out of the US and Hyundai-Kia is. We aren't paying for wars to save competitors anymore and that's just the fact.
I mean...you do know that if it want for the US being in korea peace talks most likely would have never gotten as far as they had and the tensions would be higher then they have been? You do know that vehicle companies are moving to the US to allow for easier market on the US? Just look at Toyota! They have a headquarters in Texas, and all their trucks are produced in the states. The market that the foreign companies generally move to the US for is trucks as we are the biggest producer of it.

You do know that a military without experience is one that will lose a war more then it will win one.
 

Sixgun McGurk

Well-known member
I mean...you do know that if it want for the US being in korea peace talks most likely would have never gotten as far as they had and the tensions would be higher then they have been? You do know that vehicle companies are moving to the US to allow for easier market on the US? Just look at Toyota! They have a headquarters in Texas, and all their trucks are produced in the states. The market that the foreign companies generally move to the US for is trucks as we are the biggest producer of it.

You do know that a military without experience is one that will lose a war more then it will win one.

No military 'wins' a war. At best it survives intact enough to still be useful enough to dissuade an attacker. This thread is about European defense spending, but the fact is they maintain a modest nuclear deterrence and that's enough. The Russians aren't Communists out to kill everyone with an education anymore and so the Germans would just shrug and let them take over if the price was too high. It's not like the DDR was completely intolerable, or all the Poles love things as they are now. In a nuclear world there is no WW2 style conflict, with invasion, conquest and looting, not unless you can stop every missile. There is only limited war against limited foes and our people are too valuable for that. We can't afford to waste that human capitol anymore, especially not for fighting worthless fuzzy wuzzies in Crapistan for no discernable goal. It is training for something that won't make any difference.

The fact is that no one gives a shit about Korean tensions except the Koreans. If you guys weren't there then it wouldn't even make the news. We've just decided to own that one due to inertia. If it was just the ROKs vs the North, would China even care?

Lets look at Toyota.

Do you know what a 'screwdriver' factory is? It's a factory where limited final assembly out of foriegn parts takes place. Crates are opened, screwdrivers turn and viola, a 'Made in USA' label is applied. Toyota, Hyundai and all the other 'Made in USA' screwdriver factories assemble mostly crated 80-90 percent pre-assembled foriegn made parts.

In Hyundai's case they were unloading the cars, taking off cheap Chinese tires not approved by the DOT, putting on locally made tires and calling it a 'factory.'

There is an economic law called the multiplier effect. There are many fine in depth explanations out there on the internet, but in a nutshell if you spend a dollar in the local economy, your dollar generates 1.50 worth of additional activity in the local economy.

If you buy something produced by an outside economy, one that does not buy from yours like Korea, Japan and China, there is no multiplier effect. This screwdriver factory does not benefit the US economy. The sub-assembly's are imported and the benefit of that money traveling from your economy to theirs causes a reverse multiplier for your people, a division effect that makes your economy slow down, 1.5 for every dollar you spend on that 'made in USA' out of Japanese parts Toyota. Your subassembally factories close, your towns die and your people's lives to go down the toilet.

So I see Koreans exporting without importing, fucking us with the connivance of globalist aristocrats and feel no desire to help them. If they can make cars then let them make planes, tanks and ships to fight with and leave us out. If they should get rolled over by the starvling ranks of the north, they'll learn to be happy to worship the psycho's statue and maybe that screwdriver factory will start buying all its parts in the USA! Good times for everyone.
 

Aldarion

Neoreactionary Monarchist
If there is a World War III, Europe will be the cause. Both world wars were started by Europeans fighting Europeans. Russia always became involved, because of the European plain, but the wars always originate within Europe itself. The First World War happened because the Austria-Hungary Empire declared war on Serbia over an assassination. And because of the network of alliances that had been formed before the incident to create a balance of power between the European states, all the major powers (including Russia) were drawn into the conflict. And of course, the Second World War was caused by the Germans going batshit.

All of those conflicts however, have a common central issue; the Germans. Germany was once a border region composed of various small states that competed with each other. It helped to separate Russia from Europe. After Napoleon ran through the region however, the German states stitched themselves together and unified under a single state. What was once various small states suddenly became a state whose size rivaled that of France, but whose geography was far more efficient and whose people were far more competitive. The result was a regional hegemony that challenged France. And worse, thanks to the European plain, had a direct highway to France.

Europe never found a solution to balancing the industrial and economic might of Germany with the other powers. That's impart why the French pushed for the EU and German membership. Because they'd hope to pull Germany into a subordinate role and harness their economic and industrial power for France's own personal benefit. And that worked because Germany had been split between the US and the Soviets during the Cold War. But after reunification of Germany in 1990, the German economy and industrial might began to grow so large that France couldn't control it and now they're the junior partner at the head of the EU.

The same problem has arrived on the world stage again, right under our noses. Germany's industrial and economic power has spread itself throughout all of Europe. South Europe is impart so impoverished because Germany out competes them on efficiency and because they share a monetary value, they can't hope to compete on price point. Germany is skittish of military power because of its past and its current position; without firing a single shot, they accomplish the geo-economic goal that they'd been hoping for, for well over a century. And that has turned a lot of countries within the EU against the Germans. And when the US leaves Europe, there will be no one left to promise either side that they won't be invaded.

Not likely. Europe during both First and Secon World Wars was an economic powerhouse, and controlled most of the globe besides. In fact, First World War was not first global conflict: that was Seven Years' War, followed by the Napoleonic Wars. And all of these conflicts happened because of colonies and related causes. And no, Austro-Hungarian attack on Serbia was not the cause of the war; fact is that everybody was just waiting for an excuse to start shooting, and if that attack didn't happen, something else would have triggered the conflict. Germany wanted colonies, France wanted to knock Germany down a peg in revenge for getting pasted in Franco-Prussian war, Ottomans and Bulgarians wanted revenge for Balkan Wars, Austria-Hungary wanted to stop Serbian interference in internal AH affairs (Serbian intelligence services were supporting anti-Habsburg activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina) but also to use external enemy to relax tensions within multinational empire, Serbia wanted to destabilize Austria-Hungary and possibly conquer Bosnia and Herzegovina (and other South Slav areas within the Monarchy - idea of Greater Serbia was well developed by that time), Germany and Austria-Hungary both needed to force war with Russia before Russian rearmament programme completed (it peaked in 1917), Britain was worried about Germany threatening its naval dominance - but the drop which spilled the cup was German attack on Belgium.

However, what turned all of this into a world war instead of a series of geographically limited conflicts was a network of alliances - which was directly the result of a) increase in German power, but more importantly b) presence of two blocks in race for colonies - the Entente, which wanted to keep status quo, and the Central Powers, which wanted to take colonies of their own. Italian dithering was directly related to these causes: Italy saw itself as having insufficient colonies, which would have it make common cause with Germany and Austria-Hungary; but it also wanted to conquer Croatian coast (continuing centuries of Venetian occupation of the same), which would make it have common cause with Entente. The latter goal prevailed in the end - and also after the war, when the fact that it was not given the entire Croatian coast (but rather Slovenian coast and some areas of Croatian coast) was what pushed it to join the Axis in leadup to World War II. Basically, if it weren't for colonial question, it would not have been a world war.
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
No military 'wins' a war. At best it survives intact enough to still be useful enough to dissuade an attacker. This thread is about European defense spending, but the fact is they maintain a modest nuclear deterrence and that's enough. The Russians aren't Communists out to kill everyone with an education anymore and so the Germans would just shrug and let them take over if the price was too high. It's not like the DDR was completely intolerable, or all the Poles love things as they are now. In a nuclear world there is no WW2 style conflict, with invasion, conquest and looting, not unless you can stop every missile. There is only limited war against limited foes and our people are too valuable for that. We can't afford to waste that human capitol anymore, especially not for fighting worthless fuzzy wuzzies in Crapistan for no discernable goal. It is training for something that won't make any difference.

The fact is that no one gives a shit about Korean tensions except the Koreans. If you guys weren't there then it wouldn't even make the news. We've just decided to own that one due to inertia. If it was just the ROKs vs the North, would China even care?

Lets look at Toyota.

Do you know what a 'screwdriver' factory is? It's a factory where limited final assembly out of foriegn parts takes place. Crates are opened, screwdrivers turn and viola, a 'Made in USA' label is applied. Toyota, Hyundai and all the other 'Made in USA' screwdriver factories assemble mostly crated 80-90 percent pre-assembled foriegn made parts.

In Hyundai's case they were unloading the cars, taking off cheap Chinese tires not approved by the DOT, putting on locally made tires and calling it a 'factory.'

There is an economic law called the multiplier effect. There are many fine in depth explanations out there on the internet, but in a nutshell if you spend a dollar in the local economy, your dollar generates 1.50 worth of additional activity in the local economy.

If you buy something produced by an outside economy, one that does not buy from yours like Korea, Japan and China, there is no multiplier effect. This screwdriver factory does not benefit the US economy. The sub-assembly's are imported and the benefit of that money traveling from your economy to theirs causes a reverse multiplier for your people, a division effect that makes your economy slow down, 1.5 for every dollar you spend on that 'made in USA' out of Japanese parts Toyota. Your subassembally factories close, your towns die and your people's lives to go down the toilet.

So I see Koreans exporting without importing, fucking us with the connivance of globalist aristocrats and feel no desire to help them. If they can make cars then let them make planes, tanks and ships to fight with and leave us out. If they should get rolled over by the starvling ranks of the north, they'll learn to be happy to worship the psycho's statue and maybe that screwdriver factory will start buying all its parts in the USA! Good times for everyone.
My point being a military that has no combat experience but is well funded and trained will do worse then a hardened force of a worse funded and worse trained soldiers.
There are job that one must have combat experience in if they want to be useful should a war break out. You can do well woth infantey and clmbat arms. But you can't do well without having Intel, Signals, etc etc to support that force.

Basically, without a reason to do thier jobs, people often don't take exercises seriously and should time for war come will be in a panic.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top