Post New

and the AfD did not win the election. Both predictions by Dope are a bust.

and the AfD did not win the election. Both predictions by Dope are a bust.

Why does Dope hate our Republic and democracy in general? Is he auditioning for a spot in the Trump administration?

Someone here has said - since the TMF days ......


That the sweet spot for MAGA in America and the Western World is...... having enough vote to stymie things and cause chaos, but NOT official power to where they can be blamed.


Think about that in UK and France.

Think about that during the Biden years.


As usual, I'm way ahead of You People ---- and all you got ia debt and tribalism.

I hope your mass war guts the SP 500 one day, and drafts the college campuses to go have some fun.

Both predictions by Dope are a bust.

In Dope’s defense, he is extremely consistent.

In Dope’s defense, he is extremely consistent.



So are you --- just look at the liberties you've lost since the mid 2000's.

Haha

In Dope’s defense, he is extremely consistent.

The tell is in his alias for cryin' out loud!

When did I say that AfD would outright win? I recalled saying they’d do well, which is what they did.

You people do a lot of wishing in lieu of thinking.

When did I say that AfD would outright win?

He's probably thinking of this post:

He [Vance] met with AfD, the party likely to win next in Germany.

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=778126029

No fair! You went back and looked. Then you quoted his exact words to him. How dare you.

When did I say that AfD would outright win?

So you admit your prediction that Libs would riot is a bust. Thank you for confirming that.

Dope thinks Jan 6 was a pic-a-nic, and that Boo-boo wasn't present, and Yogi had nothing to do with it. We are watching our government be weaponized to go after anyone who disagrees with Trump. It's distressing to see our position with allies destroyed by Trump and sycophants. Waiting to see if we survive. The old folks used to say - We're going to hell in a hand basket. Now that I'm old, it really does look like we're going to hell, but not in a hand basket - in a Tesla driven by people doing the Nazi salute.

So you admit your prediction that Libs would riot is a b

Except that you did riot:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/protests-agai...

Protesters rallying against immigration policies under the current presidential administration marched through the streets of downtown Los Angeles Tuesday, marking another day of demonstrations after protests continued for six straight days last week.

On Sunday, Feb. 2, the 101 Freeway was shut down for hours after crowds of an estimated few thousand people marched through downtown and eventually walked onto the freeway. It was the first day of large-scale demonstrations which then continued for days, some of the protests including students seen walking out of high school campuses in parts of LA such as Boyle Heights.

Keep trying, little man.

Dope thinks

Dope doesn't think - he knows - that he owns people who want to make these things personal. Don't want me to live in your head rent-free, haunting your nightmares? Then stop making things personal.

The beauty of it all is that...it's all up to you. Knock off the insults and the attempts to taunt and maybe you'll do better.

Or don't. Either way, the choice is yours, pet!

How dare you.

And the back row speaks.

He [Vance] met with AfD, the party likely to win next in Germany.

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=77812602
*****

Before Liberals messed it up, Kamala was "likely" to win.


THIS WAS HARDLY A PREDICTION to say "the party likely to win" it was just citing facts at the time.

THIS WAS HARDLY A PREDICTION to say "the party likely to win" it was just citing facts at the time.

They're reaching, and they know it.
The fact of the matter is that Germany's government shifted to the right yesterday.

They and Germany are now celebrating the German versions of George W Bush and a bit of Reaganism too.




Funny, when Merz says he wants to lead Germany to be independent of America, you don't hear whining "nationalism!" - -- only when America wants a bit for for itself do you hear it.

Funny, when Merz says he wants to lead Germany to be independent of America, you don't hear whining "nationalism!" - -- only when America wants a bit for for itself do you hear it.

HA! That's 100% right.
I didn't hear Merz saying, "Americans, pack up your sh1t and close all those bases you have in my country!" either. And we're not going to because he knows that Trump will happily pull everyone out and stick them in Poland.

The libs, as usual, don't understand what Merz was saying. The europeans have been asleep on foreign policy since the Berlin Wall fell. They need to start thinking like actual countries again.

Funny, when Merz says he wants to lead Germany to be independent of America, you don't hear whining "nationalism!" - -- only when America wants a bit for for itself do you hear it.

HA! That's 100% right.

Oh, I'll say it (though not whining):

This is a bad outcome. Worse than the status quo that was there before.

It is better if the U.S. and Germany are working together to combat the spread of authoritarian and anti-democratic countries and their sphere of influence. It is worse if the U.S. and Germany decide to act more separately in countering that threat. It is bad when U.S. foreign policy is so bungled that Germany determines that we are now an inconstant and untrustworthy ally that cannot be counted on to fulfill its security commitments. It is astonishing that the Trump Administration managed to all-but-destroy the presumption of cooperation and mutual assistance with one of the most important countries in Europe in just a month of bad diplomacy.

There are also real downsides to having the countries of Europe become more militarized, and start throwing their weight around more independently rather than through coordination in institutions like NATO and the UN. While the Pax Americana might seem like a bad deal to people like Trump, it did provide more than eight decades where the European continent was free of the types of military conflicts between the old Great Powers that led to WWI and WWII. The world doesn't get more stable or more secure if the countries of Europe start seeing themselves more as independent military actors and less as members of the NATO/EU team, or if they're less coordinated in sharing resources and intelligence and working cooperatively against China, or if we go back to being an Archduke away from having to go to war there again. Trump seems determined to bring us back to the era of Mercantilism and the Metternich System, but there were real problems with that international framework....

On Sunday, Feb. 2, the 101 Freeway was shut down for hours after crowds of an estimated few thousand people marched through downtown and eventually walked onto the freeway. It was the first day of large-scale demonstrations

Dope pretending demonstrations are riots again. People can see you and judge for themselves. Oh, and you take this personally? Don't. It's actually for everyone else that reads here. No way I can wake you up from your slumber, you're in too deep. And if you actually woke up, I'd be speechless, astonished.

It is better if the U.S. and Germany are working together to combat the spread of authoritarian and anti-democratic countries and their sphere of influence.

I'll let CDR Salamandar answer for me:

Were I a German, I would want a few things, in this order:

Cheaper energy—lower monthly bills and prices across the board. It will also make German manufacturing more competitive. Yes, the only way to do that is to restart the nuclear power plants. With the Greens gone, no reason not to.

Stop migration. Expel illegal migrants. If someone has vacationed in the nation they claimed to seek asylum from, deport them. Etc.

Be a player in ending the war in Ukraine, if it can be ended. If Russia refuses to be reasonable at the table, then fully back the Ukrainian fight. As this is aligned with the general direction of the USA and other allies, it makes sense.

Redouble spending on national defense. 2% will not do. 2.5% is the floor, and must be reached faster.

This
There are also real downsides to having the countries of Europe become more militarized, and start throwing their weight around more independently rather than through coordination in institutions like NATO and the UN

...is overstating things a bit. Asking the Germans et al. to have credible militaries is not "militarizing Europe". Far from it.

It is better if the U.S. and Germany are working together to combat the spread of authoritarian and anti-democratic countries and their sphere of influence. It is worse if the U.S. and Germany decide to act more separately in countering that threat. It is bad when U.S. foreign policy is so bungled that Germany determines that we are now an inconstant and untrustworthy ally that cannot be counted on to fulfill its security commitments. It is astonishing that the Trump Administration managed to all-but-destroy the presumption of cooperation and mutual assistance with one of the most important countries in Europe in just a month of bad diplomacy.

This. We paid dearly in blood for peace in Europe, and Russia paid even more. Russians feel deeply about the loss of empire, and Putin plays to that with Crimea and now Ukraine, but he feels it too. It's akin to "The South gonna rise again". Many people were very happy that the Germans were not gearing up militarily, and now the economy looks like it isn't going to be doing well.

There's no reason to beat up Europe, Canada, or Mexico over our domestic problems. Have you ever wondered why Mexico doesn't seem to have the drug addiction problems we do? We benefit tremendously from the soft power influence and the treaties and alliances we make. The big drain on our economy is giving the rich tax cuts - and Trump is going to do it again. Doge's only attacking 5-6% of the budget, but it makes a splash.

We're going to stumble around giving a show to MAGA that takes us right into a recession, and we lose friends. Depressing.

Dope ...again telling you how it is.
It's your choice to make things personal.

I'll let CDR Salamandar answer for me:

How does that answer for you? None of that requires Germany separating itself from the U.S. sphere of influence. That's what was 100% unnecessary, and was completely avoidable through better diplomacy from the U.S. You're already seeing that gap reflected in formal diplomatic circles, as the U.S. and Europe are circulating competing and inconsistent resolutions on Ukraine in the General Assembly. The U.S. wants to delete the type of language that would, in fact, call on Russia "to be reasonable at the table" and commit the international community to "fully back the Ukraine fight" if they are not. Europe is starting to move away from our sphere of influence. Which is just....bad news for our security interests.

...is overstating things a bit. Asking the Germans et al. to have credible militaries is not "militarizing Europe". Far from it.

No, it's not overstating it, because I don't think you're really thinking about what "credible" military means in this context. If the goal is just to have Germany spend a little more on their military, that's one thing. But if the aim is to have them be in a position to defend against a potential invasionary force without being able to rely on the U.S. to honor our NATO commitments, they have to seriously increase their military capabilities. As will all of the other European nations. After all, other countries can have a weaker military than Germany only if they can rely on NATO and the U.S. to guarantee their country's security in the event Germany does something....but if that guarantee is suspect, then they need to be more prepared. That's why Greece spends so much on their military - because they're next to Turkey, which has the biggest military in Europe (excluding Russia and the current Ukraine military).

That's what happens when you start getting all these countries to seriously increase their military spending. They then seriously increase their military spending. Which gives all of them more military power to throw around independent of NATO, which makes everything more dangerous. And makes them less responsive to U.S. interests or policy goals. Which seems like a foolhardy tradeoff for us, TBH - it's hard to see the security benefit to us in having the EU separate themselves out of our sphere of influence so they can focus more on pursuing their own national interests rather than following what we want. But that seems to be where Trump wants to take us back to....

None of that requires Germany separating itself from the U.S. sphere of influence.

That's your contention and your position on what Germany will do, not mine. What I posted is what I think the average German is thinking right now.

You're already seeing that gap reflected in formal diplomatic circles, as the U.S. and Europe are circulating competing and inconsistent resolutions on Ukraine in the General Assembly.

Peace talks were making zero progress towards getting anyone to the table prior to Trump taking action. What everyone is missing is that every day the war grinds on, more people die, more stuff is blown up and the misery continues. That's the most important thing to consider here and not if some diploweenie's panties wind up in a bunch.

But if the aim is to have them be in a position to defend against a potential invasionary force without being able to rely on the U.S. to honor our NATO commitments,

Sigh. The US will honor its commitments. You guys are so far down the rabbit hole that you don't see any big picture anymore. Did Trump pull all our resources out of Germany? Italy? Did he move them to Poland or locate them all stateside? The answer is he did nothing of the sort.

BTW Trump has been supporting of moving assets to Poland...which is even CLOSER and MORE PROVACATIVE to Russia.

Which gives all of them more military power to throw around independent of NATO, which makes everything more dangerous.

I think your concept of military size is a bit dated. For some euro power to dominate the globe - or even be a huge player in it - they'd need to spend 10% of their GDP or better for decades.

I'll remind you that even at the height of it Nazi Germany was NOT a global power as they never had the ability to project power outside of the European continent and northern Africa. Only the US and the UK were at the time.

TBH - it's hard to see the security benefit to us in having the EU separate themselves out of our sphere of influence

Follow the money. If they're going to increase the size of their militaries, they've gotta buy lots of stuff from somewhere. Trump - with the military industrial complex whispering in his ear - thinks they will be the ones to supply those growing armies. Lots of profit to be had selling weapons to foreign countries. "Protected free speech" flowing to Trump leads to policies that benefit those "speaking".

Mr. Transactional strikes again.

--Peter

What I posted is what I think the average German is thinking right now.

None of which is relevant to whether Germany establishes greater "independence" from the U.S. The diplomatic rift that the Administration has created is wholly unnecessary to any of those points, and accomplishes nothing except to weaken our national security position in Europe.

Peace talks were making zero progress towards getting anyone to the table prior to Trump taking action. What everyone is missing is that every day the war grinds on, more people die, more stuff is blown up and the misery continues. That's the most important thing to consider here and not if some diploweenie's panties wind up in a bunch.

Ukraine could have ended the war on Day 1 if they had just surrendered entirely. When another country starts a war, sometimes it is necessary to fight that war. The battlefield deaths may be the most important thing to consider, but it is not the only thing to consider. Protecting Ukraine, and making their sacrifices count for something, matter as well.

It's not diploweenie's panties getting in a bunch, but rather making sure that Putin faces the consequence of unprovoked territorial aggression sufficient to ensure that similar acts are not duplicated elsewhere. If Ukraine and the West concede all of Putin's war aims to him at the negotiating table, then the world becomes a vastly more dangerous place.

This is the international structure that has governed the world during the Pax Americana. A global consensus that strong nations could not use their strength in their near abroad to violate the sovereignty of weaker nations. That consensus has been upheld by a willingness to use force to secure it, as we saw in Kuwait and Ukraine. The U.S. signed onto that consensus even though we are a strong nation, and thus arguably were limiting our interests by agreeing to it - but we realized that we benefited more by the global rule that limited our strength but secured more stability. The current Administration is pivoting away from that, far less willing to put our national strength in harness to secure global stability. That is a choice, of course - but I think it's a foolish one.

I think your concept of military size is a bit dated. For some euro power to dominate the globe - or even be a huge player in it - they'd need to spend 10% of their GDP or better for decades.

I'll remind you that even at the height of it Nazi Germany was NOT a global power as they never had the ability to project power outside of the European continent and northern Africa. Only the US and the UK were at the time.

And yet still plunged the nearly the entire world into warfare and chaos.

I don't worry about a country like Germany becoming a global superpower to rival the U.S. I worry about all of the various nations in Europe ramping up their militaries to the point where they are all threatening each other locally, outside of a strong NATO umbrella. The dynamic we see between Greece and Turkey, even though they're both NATO members. Because then we're back to the bad old days, where strong (but not global) powers end up forming all sorts of alliances and regional spheres of influence to protect themselves. Which then sets the world on fire when one of those alliances ends up in conflict with another.

It's better for our national security Germany being dependent and complacently following the U.S., rather than being strong and causing trouble on the Continent. There was an ocean between the U.S. and Europe during WWI and WWII as well - that didn't stop us from being drawn into the widening gyre of war. With three nuclear powers in Europe, the consequences of a war on the Continent are even more fraught.

None of which is relevant to whether Germany establishes greater "independence" from the U.S. The diplomatic rift that the Administration has created is wholly unnecessary to any of those points, and accomplishes nothing except to weaken our national security position in Europe.

It's completely relevant. What does "independence" even mean? You guys are acting like the EU is going to sever diplomatic relations with the US and start conquering territory. They're not.

What IS going to happen is that the Germans are going to get a government that's more in the middle that what they've had in a long time. AfD will become the main opposition party as none of the others want to work with them...so instead of getting a center-right to right leaning government the Germans are still going to be heavily influenced by the SPD.

Ukraine could have ended the war on Day 1 if they had just surrendered entirely. When another country starts a war, sometimes it is necessary to fight that war. The battlefield deaths may be the most important thing to consider, but it is not the only thing to consider. Protecting Ukraine, and making their sacrifices count for something, matter as well...It's not diploweenie's panties getting in a bunch, but rather making sure that Putin faces the consequence of unprovoked territorial aggression sufficient to ensure that similar acts are not duplicated elsewhere. If Ukraine and the West concede all of Putin's war aims to him at the negotiating table, then the world becomes a vastly more dangerous place.

Sure. Three years in and we've achieved a stalemate. Reality gets a vote, and that vote is that the Ukranians don't have enough dudes, money and firepower to push the Russkies out.

So now what? Do you want us to drive tanks in from Poland and do it for them? Have US airpower get involved? Conduct pre-emptive strikes on Russian bases and what not?

This is the international structure that has governed the world during the Pax Americana. A global consensus that strong nations could not use their strength in their near abroad to violate the sovereignty of weaker nations. That consensus has been upheld by a willingness to use force to secure it, as we saw in Kuwait and Ukraine. The U.S. signed onto that consensus even though we are a strong nation, and thus arguably were limiting our interests by agreeing to it - but we realized that we benefited more by the global rule that limited our strength but secured more stability. The current Administration is pivoting away from that, far less willing to put our national strength in harness to secure global stability. That is a choice, of course - but I think it's a foolish one.


Oh, boy. You *are* aware that this "international structure" relied on the United States to
-Provide all the troops and weapons
-Provide all the logistics
-Pay for it all

Is that what you want here?

I worry about all of the various nations in Europe ramping up their militaries to the point where they are all threatening each other locally, outside of a strong NATO umbrella.

To what purpose? Are the French and the Germans going to re-fight the Franco/Prussian war for the 4th time over Alsace-Lorraine? Or are the Brits going to decide to smack the Belgians around?

It's better for our national security Germany being dependent and complacently following the U.S., rather than being strong and causing trouble on the Continent. There was an ocean between the U.S. and Europe during WWI and WWII as well - that didn't stop us from being drawn into the widening gyre of war. With three nuclear powers in Europe, the consequences of a war on the Continent are even more fraught.

So in your mind that unless our thumb is on their governments the Europeans are going to go buck wild and start teaming up against one another again? Dude.

Also, I really hate to burst your bubble re:Greece and Turkey. Those two have nearly come to blows several times despite being in NATO.

What does "independence" even mean?

That they're not going to continue to shape their foreign policy efforts to line up with those of the United States. Such as what happened today, when Germany (and the rest of the EU) pursued a different resolution on Ukraine than happened today. This will probably be reflected in a chilling/separation on a host of other fronts: less sharing of sensitive intelligence information, fewer "heads up" and consultations in foreign policy and other decisions, etc. Expect the formal actions of NATO to also be a little less deferential to the direction that the US might want to steer it as well.

To what purpose? Are the French and the Germans going to re-fight the Franco/Prussian war for the 4th time over Alsace-Lorraine? Or are the Brits going to decide to smack the Belgians around?

Who knows? The most likely cause of problems isn't an issue directly between the Great Powers, but something that happens within those Powers' spheres of influence (it's often the Balkans). For example, you get one "team" that lines up with Greece, and another "team" that lines up with Turkey - and a conflict between Greece and Turkey ends up spiraling out of control.

There's a reason you think of this as an absurdly low-probability event. It's because of the international order that's been in place for the last 80 years - a rigorous dedication to the idea that nations should use non-martial institutions (like the UN) to resolve issues, and that European security was provided through the collective forces of NATO rather than individual countries relying on separate military capabilities. Once you start kicking that away, the chances of conflict on the Continent go way up. If you throw away the Pax Americana because we can't be bothered to enforce it any more, what replaces it will be more dangerous (and ultimately more dangerous to us, IMHO). Especially add in China trying to stir the pot - a well-timed recognition of the Armenian Genocide or a bumping up their footprint in Moldova or Albania (not all countries are going to react like Italy)?

So in your mind that unless our thumb is on their governments the Europeans are going to go buck wild and start teaming up against one another again?

No. That unless we continually support and reinforce the global international framework that provides collective security for Europe (rather than individual national security) one significantly likely outcome of the resulting fragmentation of national security interests is that you'll get a conflict that spreads into a military conflict. They're not going to go "buck wild," but they're going to need to start making their own arrangements. If NATO isn't strong enough as an institution (not as a military force) to protect their national security, they'll have to find other means. And as you point out, none of them is strong enough to be a global superpower - which means that they most likely mechanism for securing their national security is through forging alliances within Europe to replace the "universal" alliance that the UN and NATO represent.

In Europe, you have about 40+ separate nations crammed into an area about the size of the US - most of them wealthy industrial powers, several of them nuclear armed, many of them with militaries among the world's largest (for all your slights). If the US isn't willing to be the "leader of the Free World" anymore, what do you think happens with no leader? Internal conflict, jockeying for position....all the Metternich/Council of Europe kind of stuff that ultimately led to WWI.

The entire international system was set up to favor us. To have the U.S., as the leader of the free world, have unparalleled influence in Europe as a way to check against the Communist threat. The price of that was U.S. having to maintain the world's largest and most effective military and use it from time to time - the benefit of that was that we had eighty years where we were driving the bus in First World global policy.

That they're not going to continue to shape their foreign policy efforts to line up with those of the United States. Such as what happened today, when Germany (and the rest of the EU) pursued a different resolution on Ukraine than happened today.

Here's what you're missing: there was no serious movement on peace talks until we dug in.

less sharing of sensitive intelligence information, fewer "heads up" and consultations in foreign policy and other decisions, etc. Expect the formal actions of NATO to also be a little less deferential to the direction that the US might want to steer it as well.

LOL. You do realize that the vast majority of signals intel and satellite data comes from us, right? There's a line of countries wanting to join Five Eyes.

Who knows? The most likely cause of problems isn't an issue directly between the Great Powers, but something that happens within those Powers' spheres of influence (it's often the Balkans). For example, you get one "team" that lines up with Greece, and another "team" that lines up with Turkey - and a conflict between Greece and Turkey ends up spiraling out of control.

It's not 1911 anymore, my dude.

Once you start kicking that away, the chances of conflict on the Continent go way up.

No. The Europeans had 2 rounds of total continental war in the last century and they don't want that anymore.

If you throw away the Pax Americana because we can't be bothered to enforce it any more, what replaces it will be more dangerous (and ultimately more dangerous to us, IMHO).

Again, no. Here's what your "Pax Americana" looks like:

https://x.com/MarcherReborn/status/189102700193218...

A reality check for Macron and the EU. Without the US there is no NATO, to build a comparable EU Army will take a seismic distribution of current EU spending plans.
You can have all the hissy fits you want over Vance’s speech, but a federalist EU army will NEVER happen


If you don't want to click the link, what it's showing you is a pie chart. A pie chart that shows the US spend >70% of all the money NATO has for defense. Your notion of a massively armed Europe out bashing each other or threatening the US is unrealistic: to arm up to that level they'd need to tear down their social support structures to pay for it.

They'll NEVER do that.

Here's another point for you to ponder:
https://x.com/petespiliakos/status/189377105315276...

Here's a tip: Just stop freeloading. Poland pays it's share in defense and has been more directly impacted by the dislocations of the Ukraine War but they get along with Trump better than you because paying their share creates the basis for mutual respect.

The Poles get it. The Germans, French and Brits don't.

That unless we continually support and reinforce the global international framework that provides collective security for Europe (rather than individual national security) one significantly likely outcome of the resulting fragmentation of national security interests is that you'll get a conflict that spreads into a military conflict

Again: No. You used the word "Collective". Right now the US is the sole guarantor of Europe's security because the Europeans are barely investing in their own defense.

Kier Starmer is visiting the White House next week. He's going to tell Trump that he's going to go from 2% to 2.5% of GDP on his defense budget. Trump will likely tear him a new one anyone for them basically tanking the readiness of their armed forces.

In Europe, you have about 40+ separate nations crammed into an area about the size of the US - most of them wealthy industrial powers,

Wealthy, eh? How true is that? Here's another stat for you to ponder:

https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/01/03/the-p...

Mississippi, the poorest state in the United States, is close to surpassing Europe's largest economy Germany's GDP per capita. Euronews Business compares US states with European countries.

The poorest US state's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita is higher than that of Europe's top five economies, except for Germany. However, Mississippi competes closely with Germany, with a difference of just €1,500.

And here's another stat.

https://x.com/Big_Picture_89/status/18937225475872...

Europe’s regulatory regime makes capital investment impossible, and has resulted in zero innovation and growth.

Home Depot alone is now worth more than all the major companies founded in the EU over the last 50 years combined.

Here's what you're missing: there was no serious movement on peace talks until we dug in.

I'm not missing that. There's still no serious movement on peace talks that might be acceptable to Ukraine, one of the combatant parties. The only reason peace talks are "moving" is because the Administration has floated the idea of giving up the conflict and letting Russia win all of their objectives in the war (and taking a piece of Ukraine's resources for ourselves). We're not really bringing much to the table by walking in with the suggestion to Ukraine, "Russia would stop killing your soldiers if you just gave in to the invaders and stopped defending your country."

No. The Europeans had 2 rounds of total continental war in the last century and they don't want that anymore.

They didn't want it then, either. It's not like everyone planned for WWI to happen. If you walk back from the modern collective security arrangement

Again: No. You used the word "Collective". Right now the US is the sole guarantor of Europe's security because the Europeans are barely investing in their own defense.

Here's a fun fact - the non-US members of NATO spend more on defense than China. Nearly as much as China and Russia combined:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_C...

Again: you keep imagining a Europe that doesn't spend much money on defense. In reality, NATO outside the US has the second largest military budget in the world. They only look small next to the U.S., because no one spends like the U.S. But they spend more than China or Russia or any other country on earth, save us.

Your notion of a massively armed Europe out bashing each other or threatening the US is unrealistic: to arm up to that level they'd need to tear down their social support structures to pay for it.

Nonsense. They don't need to build up their military to US levels to start bashing each other. They're all wealthy by global standards - wealthy enough to develop militaries that rank among the world's largest, if below the super-power level. More than enough for brutal and destructive conflicts.

Mississippi, the poorest state in the United States, is close to surpassing Europe's largest economy Germany's GDP per capita. Euronews Business compares US states with European countries.

Yeah - same is true of China, whose per capita GDP isn't even a third of Mississippi's. Yet I think you would agree that they present the pre-eminent threat to the United States in the entire world. Collectively, the EU's GDP is larger than China - and their GDP per capita is more than double that of China. So yes, they're wealthy enough to militarize.

Peace talks were making zero progress towards getting anyone to the table prior to Trump taking action. What everyone is missing is that every day the war grinds on, more people die, more stuff is blown up and the misery continues.

So caring of you. /s

You will go to any lengths to somehow justify the unjustifiable. What Trump is doing to Ukraine and to our alliances is disastrous.

But you've committed to riding this crazy train no matter where it goes and in the end, if it comes to it, you will justify the end of our great experiment in democracy.

The entire international system was set up to favor us.

And Trump wants it set up to favor him and and his oligarch cronies and the other autocrats he so admires.

I'm not missing that. There's still no serious movement on peace talks that might be acceptable to Ukraine, one of the combatant parties.

Maybe, maybe not. Bear in mind that what the media reports and what goes on in the room don't necessarily align.

Case in point:
The only reason peace talks are "moving" is because the Administration has floated the idea of giving up the conflict and letting Russia win all of their objectives in the war (and taking a piece of Ukraine's resources for ourselves). We're not really bringing much to the table by walking in with the suggestion to Ukraine, "Russia would stop killing your soldiers if you just gave in to the invaders and stopped defending your country."

My response to this is simple:

What are the odds the Ukrainians are going to push the Russians out?

I'll answer for you: Nearly zero at this point. They don't have the dudes, the firepower or the money to do it.

BTW, the left is missing another element of this. By "imposing" peace and dragging Zelensky toward a deal he doesn't like, Trump is helping him keep his government in place. Trump is set up to be The Bad Guy and Zelensky can go back to his people and say, "That dastardly Orange Man made us take this lousy deal".

They didn't want it then, either. It's not like everyone planned for WWI to happen. If you walk back from the modern collective security arrangement

European attitudes on war were VASTLY different in 1914 than now. You might want to revisit the subject:
https://www.historycrunch.com/excitement-for-world...


World War I is notable for the early excitement that existed among the soldiers who were heading off to war. When World War I broke out in 1914, many European cities and towns celebrated the newly declared war and many young men clamored for their opportunity to fight in the battles of the Great War. For example, Austrian writer Stefan Zweig famously described the scene in Vienna, Austria at the announcement of World War I. He wrote: "In every station placards had been put up announcing general mobilization. The trains were filled with fresh recruits, banners were flying, music sounded, and in Vienna I found the entire city in a tumult... There were parades in the street, flags, ribbons, and music burst forth everywhere, young recruits were marching triumphantly, their faces lighting up at the cheering..."

So no, after the carnage of the first 2, they don't want a Round 3 on the continent.

Here's a fun fact - the non-US members of NATO spend more on defense than China. Nearly as much as China and Russia combined:

Oh, come on.
You really think the Chinese are giving you accurate numbers of their defense spending?????

https://news.usni.org/2024/02/01/report-to-congres...
China’s navy is, by far, the largest of any country in East Asia, and sometime between 2015 and 2020 it surpassed the U.S. Navy in numbers of battle force ships, meaning the types of ships that count toward the quoted size of the U.S. Navy. DOD states that China’s navy “is the largest navy in the world with a battle force of over 370 platforms, including major surface combatants, submarines, ocean-going amphibious ships, mine warfare ships, aircraft carriers, and fleet auxiliaries. Notably, this figure does not include approximately 60 HOUBEI-class patrol combatants that carry anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM). The… overall battle force [of China’s navy] is expected to grow to 395 ships by 2025 and 435 ships by 2030.”

https://warriormaven.com/china/china-says-it-will-...
A Chinese government backed newspaper is announcing that now, with the arrival of the J-35, China is the second country to have “two” 5th-generation aircraft and, perhaps of greatest concern to the Pentagon, the PRC plans to “mass produce” its new J-35. Well known for its massive military production capacity, enabled to a large degree by its civil-military fusion, the PLA may indeed be well positioned to fast-track large-quantities of the J-35.

https://simpleflying.com/how-many-fighter-jets-chi...

According to reporting by Air and Space Forces Magazine, China produces roughly more than 100 J-20 Mighty Dragons (NATO reporting name Fagin) a year (these are China's vaunted 5th-generation fighter jets).

BTW we have around ~120 F-22s, to put that in perspective. Does this sound like a country not spending much on defense?

They only look small next to the U.S., because no one spends like the U.S. But they spend more than China or Russia or any other country on earth, save us.

I think this is not an accurate statement.

Here's what you're missing: there was no serious movement on peace talks until we dug in.

LOL.

Those aren't 'peace talks', those are 'surrender talks' that exclude the country that was invaded!

And BTW for those of you whining about Rubio taking NATO off the table for the Ukraine (and it was never on the table):

https://www.axios.com/2025/02/24/ukraine-mineral-d...

The U.S. and Ukraine are closing in on minerals agreement worth hundreds of billions of dollars under which the U.S. would express its desire to keep Ukraine "free, sovereign and secure," according to a draft obtained by Axios.

Why it matters: The Trump administration sees the agreement as a way to get a return on U.S. investment in Ukraine, which has vast untapped mineral wealth. Ukrainian officials see the deal as a way to halt the deterioration of relations with the Trump administration and establish a longer-term partnership with the U.S.

A Ukrainian official told Axios a deal is close and could be signed as soon as Monday. The official said the document Axios has reviewed is the most recent version, but could still be amended.
Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Olga Stefanishyna confirmed in an X post Monday that the sides were close to a deal, and said signing it would "showcase our commitment for decades to come."
The latest: At the top of his meeting with French President Emmanuel Macron in the oval office on Monday, President Trump said Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could come to the White House "this week or next week" to sign the minerals deal.

The Ukrainians are adding language suggesting the US would guarantee their security, but this will likely be struck.

And the agreement may be read here:
https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/189406018157664258...
https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/189406018157664258...

To that end, the Government of The United States of America intends to provide a long term financial commitment to the development of a stable and economically prosperous Ukraine.

If you want to know why the diploweenies are up in arms in Brussels, it's because they got caught with their pants down.

What are the odds the Ukrainians are going to push the Russians out?

Depends on what Putin is willing to agree to in order to end the war. The odds are zero if Ukraine goes to the negotiating table agreeing that Russia gets to keep 100% of the territory they've got (plus all their other war aims). The odds are higher if Ukraine goes to the table committed to continuing the fight unless Russia gives them something in exchange for peace. And the odds of Russia having to agree to something more than just "we get everything we have" go up very high indeed if the US and EU continue to support Ukraine.

I don't often agree with Mitch McConnell, but:

McConnell, who has devoted his final two years in the Senate to pushing back against the isolationists in his party, said that hoping that “appeasement will check the ambitions” of Putin is “as naïve today as it was in 1939,” referring to western Europe’s initial hesitancy in standing up to Nazi Germany.

“America is right to seek an end to this war, but an end that fails to constrain Russian ambition, ensure Ukrainian sovereignty, or strengthen American credibility with both allies and adversaries is no end at all,” he warned.

“Instead, such a hollow peace would invite further aggression,” he said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5161804-mcconn...

So no, after the carnage of the first 2, they don't want a Round 3 on the continent.

I'm sure they don't - and the fact that countries don't desire war has never stopped war from happening. Because countries have other aims and objectives and needs other than just avoiding war, and sometimes those end up ruling the day....and a minor dispute becomes a minor skirmish becomes a contained dispute becomes a broader conflict becomes a significant multiparty war. The peace we enjoy doesn't automatically continue if we stop doing the things that secure that peace - and providing security guarantees to Europe is a massive reason why the EU is peaceful.

You really think the Chinese are giving you accurate numbers of their defense spending?????

Those aren't jus the Chinese numbers. Outside estimates give it a similar range, roughly half that of the U.S.

Which is (again) about where the non-US members of NATO are. The US spends about $800 billion on defense, they spend about $400 billion. Which is a massive amount of defense spending. Superpower level of defense spending, collectively. You can argue whether they should spend more, because their economy could support more - but this fanciful notion you have that non-US NATO spending is minimal is just flat-out wrong.

I think this is not an accurate statement.

I know you do, because it doesn't match your beliefs about defense spending of other countries. But it's true. Non-US NATO military spending is more than $400 billion (or at least it was in 2023, and it's certainly higher now with support for Ukraine). An amount that exceeds (or worst case rivals) the spending of global superpower China. It's either the second- or third-largest military expenditure on earth. That doesn't jibe with the idea that the other NATO nations are just free-riding on the US, so you don't believe it. Because you want to keep believing that none of them (except maybe Poland) are materially contributing to their own defense. But that belief is false.

Depends on what Putin is willing to agree to in order to end the war.

That's not the question I asked. The battlefield is a stalemate right now.
The Ukrainians don't have the dudes, the firepower or the money to push the Russkies all the way out.

The odds are zero if Ukraine goes to the negotiating table agreeing that Russia gets to keep 100% of the territor

How do you know that's what's being discussed? You don't.

And the odds of Russia having to agree to something more than just "we get everything we have" go up very high indeed if the US and EU continue to support Ukraine.

I get that you guys loathe Trump and think he's the First Coming of Stupid, but you folks need to move past that in the worst way. Go talk to any Ukrainian. Anyone at all. What you'll learn is that Putin's invasion is now what amounts to a Holy War between the two countries. Putin's made generations of enemies among them as what he's done is beyond unforgiveable.

What you guys aren't getting is that the Ukrainians don't have much left in the tank to fight. They need time to regroup, re-arm and rebuild their entire national economy. For example - how much steel is Mariupol producing right now? Zero, since Putin's army is occupying it. How much grain are they growing given their fields are full of mines?

Because countries have other aims and objectives and needs other than just avoiding war, and sometimes those end up ruling the day....and a minor dispute becomes a minor skirmish becomes a contained dispute becomes a broader conflict becomes a significant multiparty war.

Well they need guns and dudes and most importantly, the support of their people to flippantly go to war with each other. What does the average Euro think about continental security?

https://www.economist.com/europe/2024/12/12/europe...
“With politicians bickering about pensions and social spending, and loth to raise taxes, the reality is of a continent unwilling to inconvenience itself for something so trifling as fending off a potential invader. Europeans want more military spending, sure; some churn out ludicrous soundbites about building a ‘war economy.’ But God forbid that anyone make voters endure the cost of it.”

and

https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trumps-miss...
Until Trump’s election in 2016, the Europeans were getting along just fine, including with Washington. The United States did the tough jobs, most importantly, defending the free world from communism and related threats. The Europeans focused on fun, creating bountiful welfare states at home and providing generous foreign aid to assorted Third World governments. Everyone was happy, more or less.

To be sure, American officials whined and complained about NATO allies preferring butter to guns. Robert Gates gave a particularly surly valedictory speech suggesting that the system was unsustainable: “The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the U.S. Congress—and in the American body politic writ large—to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defense.”

...lest you think it's merely Trump The Troglodyte telling them to pay for their own defense.

But let's go on. How much atrophy has set in?
A recent Kiel Institute report described the failure in excruciating detail: “Meaningful increases in procurement activity did not begin until more than one year after the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, orders have remained rather small in size. [Even if 123 tanks ordered] are delivered quickly, Germany would still have only 440 main battle tanks—compared to 2400 back in 2004. For other weapon systems, the numbers look even less favorable.” Overall, the study shockingly concludes: “Our findings show that it will take decades if not centuries to build up similar capacities to 2004 at current procurement speeds. When taking into account commitments to Ukraine, we even document that procurement for some weapon systems is insufficient to replace commitments and existing deterrence capabilities are actually falling.”

Get that?

Those aren't jus the Chinese numbers. Outside estimates give it a similar range, roughly half that of the U.S.

Then what should concern you is how much bang for the buck they're getting. They're putting more hulls in the water and more planes in the air than we are.

Because you want to keep believing that none of them (except maybe Poland) are materially contributing to their own defense. But that belief is false.

Sorry, bud. All the data shows you're not right on this one. Here, I'll post this DAMNING paragraph again:

“Meaningful increases in procurement activity did not begin until more than one year after the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Since then, orders have remained rather small in size. [Even if 123 tanks ordered] are delivered quickly, Germany would still have only 440 main battle tanks—compared to 2400 back in 2004. For other weapon systems, the numbers look even less favorable.” Overall, the study shockingly concludes: “Our findings show that it will take decades if not centuries to build up similar capacities to 2004 at current procurement speeds. When taking into account commitments to Ukraine, we even document that procurement for some weapon systems is insufficient to replace commitments and existing deterrence capabilities are actually falling.”

Let's zoom in on two sentences
“Our findings show that it will take decades if not centuries to build up similar capacities to 2004 at current procurement speeds."

That's just to regain their capabilities of 2004.

But that's not the kicker. This is When taking into account commitments to Ukraine, we even document that procurement for some weapon systems is insufficient to replace commitments and existing deterrence capabilities are actually falling"

See that? They're spending more money, and actually getting worse.

To do what you say they're going to inevitably do means they'd have to dismantle their social welfare states. They won't do that.

BTW, here's Macron today from the White House (he's here right now)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_icClkj0Eo&t=766s...
As the President just said, there are many challenges in the world. Over the past few days, we have one primary objective, which is the geopolitical situation. Mr. President, I really wish to thank you for making changes to your schedule to meet with us so quickly.

I think we've made very substantive steps forward in our discussions and this is a major step in what we're experiencing today. We had a video conference with all of the G7 leaders, which was an opportunity for us to discuss this matter three days [sic] after the Russian war in Ukraine and to express our support for President Zelenskyy to the Ukrainian people but also to speak with and share about our desire for a lasting peace.

This is what we have spoken about very forcefully over the last few weeks. We thought that this war was only going to last a few weeks when it broke out in 2022, we admire greatly the courage of the Ukrainian people. And Mr. President, I wish to thank you for this. You mentioned that there are responsibilities on Europe's side, and indeed, we have invested 128 billion in aid to Ukraine and the Ukrainians. Ukraine has been able to hold the front of our collective security. It's fought over these past few years for its independence and for its sovereignty but also for our collective security because I think that no one in this room wants to live in a world that it's the law of the strongest and that international borders can be violated from one day to the next by anyone.

You still want to believe that Trump is going it completely alone here? And that he's not listening to the Europeans?

The Ukrainians don't have the dudes, the firepower or the money to push the Russkies all the way out.

Neither did the Viet Cong, nor the Afghans to Russia in 1980, nor the Iraqis in the Second Gulf War, nor the Taliban in Afghanistan to us. When the weaker party in an asymmetric conflict manages to achieve some or all of their aims in resistance, it's usually not by physically pushing back the opposing troops, but by creating conditions where the opposing belligerent accepts something less (sometimes entirely less) than their initial war aims. Russia's faced tremendous costs in maintaining the war, and would almost certainly settle for something less than their wish list and 100% of currently occupied territory in order to get out from under. But not if we kneecap Ukraine's negotiating position.

See that? They're spending more money, and actually getting worse.

To do what you say they're going to inevitably do means they'd have to dismantle their social welfare states. They won't do that.

Again, nonsense. Germany's military budget in 2004 was lower than it is today, both absolute and percent of GDP. They spend more on personnel than military today than they did in 2004, because that's their role in NATO. Germany's not on the front line, so the tanks and heavy equipment aren't in Germany or under control of the German army - they've invested in personnel. If they needed to shift, they could shift - your excerpt assumes the status quo, which is by definition not the world we're talking about.

If you get all of the countries of Europe to stop planning their national defense as components of a NATO force, but being independent armies that have their own resources (which is wastefully duplicative if they're acting as members of a multi-national force, but necessary for independent defense), then you increase their capacity for warfare as independent countries. There's downside to that.

Your insistence that they're not materially contributing their own defense flies in the face of the facts. Non-NATO troop levels and spending are very high. They're maintaining a massive fighting force, one that is designed to be supported by US armored and air force. It isn't designed to repel an invasion of Europe without the U.S., because that's not the defense strategy. That doesn't mean they're not materially contributing - or that they couldn't pivot their expenditures in a way that doesn't involve dismantling their social welfare states.

You still want to believe that Trump is going it completely alone here? And that he's not listening to the Europeans?

Yep. They know the importance of blowing smoke at Trump - how much importance he places on people saying how right he is, and thanking him publicly for whatever he's doing. But their votes at the General Assembly indicate that there's now a big separation between the actual foreign policy position of these nations and those of the U.S.

Look - we're a big important superpower. If we want to throw in on the side of the invading dictator instead of the innocent people defending their country, we can do that - and no one can stop us. If we're backchanneling that we're going to give the store away to Putin regardless of what Europe thinks, they may come to terms with that reality and decide not to fight it in public. Today, we have that power - it's the currency that comes from having supported Europe for so many decades, that we can decide for them what happens in Ukraine without anyone having the ability to change it. We can make them do some stuff they disagree with, because they depend on us.

But there's a downside to that. If we cram a bad deal down Ukraine (and Europe's) throat, Europe's going to start moving away from our sphere of influence in order to reduce their exposure to that kind of power. They haven't in the past, because we've (generally) used our power in ways that are consonant with Europe's interests. If we decide we're going to only focus on our own interests, then they're going to make changes on their side of the relationship that improve their security at the expense of our interests. It's hard to see how this benefits us at all in terms of our security situation.

Neither did the Viet Cong

Okay. So you want them to continue to pay the bill indefinitely?

Russia's faced tremendous costs in maintaining the war, and would almost certainly settle for something less than their wish list and 100% of currently occupied territory in order to get out from under. But not if we kneecap Ukraine's negotiating position.

Again, you don't know this.

Germany's military budget in 2004 was lower than it is today, both absolute and percent of GDP. They spend more on personnel than military today than they did in 2004, because that's their role in NATO.

Sheesh. You understand that they've dug themselves a giant hole that they need to climb out of just to get back to where there were 21 years ago, yes?

Germany's not on the front line, so the tanks and heavy equipment aren't in Germany or under control of the German army - they've invested in personnel. If they needed to shift, they could shift - your excerpt assumes the status quo, which is by definition not the world we're talking about.

Sure. Why not give them a bunch of horses and send them off? That's pretty cheap.

The other problem you have is that you're treating total dollars spent on defense like Time of Possession in football. It's an important metric but not the only one. The Germans are spending more and getting WORSE in terms of readiness.

Your insistence that they're not materially contributing their own defense flies in the face of the facts.

No it doesn't. They're not spending to the level they need to. For one, they're getting WORSE year on year despite spending more. What does that tell you?

They're maintaining a massive fighting force,

What are you talking about? Their heavy equipment is way lower than what it was in 2004 and here's their manpower:
https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countri...

183k troops. They had 550k in 1990. Hardly a "massive" force, especially one with not so much equipment.

Yep.

Okay. That's why Trump dropped everything to meet with Macron today.

Look - we're a big important superpower. If we want to throw in on the side of the invading dictator instead of the innocent people defending their country, we can do that - and no one can stop us.

Is that what you think we're doing? No. Not even close.

One more time:
Ukraine lacks the dudes, the firepower and the money to throw Ivan out.

Ukraine lacks the dudes, the firepower and the money to throw Ivan out.

The same could be said about the Americans in 1783.

Or the North Vietnamese in 1975.

So you want them to continue to pay the bill indefinitely?

I don't want them to continue to pay the bill indefinitely. What I want is for Russia to do the just and proper thing and withdraw to their pre-war border, since they engaged in an unprovoked and unjustified and (dare I say) evil attack on an innocent neighbor.

Recognizing that Russia won't do the right thing, neither do I think it is necessary or advisable to give Russia all of its war aims just to sue for peace. Ukraine can't force Russia out of its territory, but neither do they have to completely capitulate.

The other problem you have is that you're treating total dollars spent on defense like Time of Possession in football. It's an important metric but not the only one. The Germans are spending more and getting WORSE in terms of readiness.

They're not aiming to be ready as a standalone military force. That's the point. They're part of a multinational defense coalition, and their contribution to that defense coalition doesn't have to be (and probably shouldn't be) allocated in the same way as you would expect if they were fielding a national defense on their own. You don't need every nation in Europe to have the same number of armored divisions as they would field if they were all stand-alone countries - because then you're wasting resources.

183k troops. They had 550k in 1990. Hardly a "massive" force, especially one with not so much equipment.

Still one of the biggest armies in the EU - only second to France.

Yes, it's far less than in 1990 = because the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union broke up, and Poland and Czechoslovakia (to say nothing of East Germany) went from being Soviet satellite states to being independent (moving a possible front line with Russia a thousand miles away instead of being the German border). The Red Army went from having about 5 million active-duty forces in the mid-1980's to about a million today (well, fewer now). You need a military proportionate to the threats your country faces - and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Germany faced a different and lesser threat profile. Now it's Poland that's the front-line NATO country, and the Russia army is a fifth of what it was. So, yes - they still have a force that's plenty big enough to get involved in conflicts on the Continent, if it came to that.

The same could be said about the Americans in 1783.

Or the North Vietnamese in 1975.

The North Vietnamese had the dudes, the firepower and the money in '75. They sent something like 180k soldiers across the border with a lot of help from the Soviet Union.

As for us:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/americ...

-We had ~48,000 regular troops, backed by Colonial troops plus another 12,000 French.
The Brits had ~22,000 troops of their own with another 25k loyalists.

Here's what you're missing: there was no serious movement on peace talks until we dug in.

How were those “peace talks”?

Was Ukraine there to speak for its interests?

Did the United States actually “negotiate” with Russia? Or did it simply cave to Russian demands, even to the point of promising to block a UN Security Council resolution that would have condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Trump even describes the position of the United States using Putin’s own words.


It’s not a “negotiation”; it’s a sell out

I don't want them to continue to pay the bill indefinitely. What I want is for Russia to do the just and proper thing and withdraw to their pre-war border, since they engaged in an unprovoked and unjustified and (dare I say) evil attack on an innocent neighbor.

They're not going to do that. Putin wants to keep his perch and his head, and as such won't unilaterally withdraw. He's sunk too much into it.
So knowing that, and knowing that the battlefield situation is essentially a costly stalemate, the best (as in, least shitty) option is to start negotiations.

They're not aiming to be ready as a standalone military force. That's the point. They're part of a multinational defense coalition, and their contribution to that defense coalition doesn't have to be (and probably shouldn't be) allocated in the same way as you would expect if they were fielding a national defense on their own. You don't need every nation in Europe to have the same number of armored divisions as they would field if they were all stand-alone countries - because then you're wasting resources.


If the plan is to have them just supply manpower, then where does the heavy equipment come from? The Ukraine war is teaching the world that cheap drones buy you a lot but also that artillery is still the great equalizer. We need shell production to ramp up rapidly.

Fortunately one decent thing that Joe Biden did was to direct the Army to do just that:

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2024/10/14/army-r...
“There’s going to be a lot of ribbon cuttings between now and the end of the year,” Doug Bush, the Army’s acquisition chief, told Defense News in an interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference.

The Pentagon is investing billions of dollars to increase the capacity of 155mm munition production as it races to replenish stock sent to support Ukraine’s fight against the Russian invasion, which began in early 2022, and to ensure the U.S. has what it might need should conflict erupt across multiple theaters at once. The Army planned to spend $3.1 billion in FY24 supplemental funding alone to ramp up production.

Prior to the war in Ukraine, the U.S. could build about 14,400 of the artillery shells per month. But as Ukrainian forces burn through the ammunition for howitzers sent to the country, the U.S. recognized quickly that replenishment could not be done with the current infrastructure.

The service has set a target of producing 100,000 artillery shells per month, but Army officials have shared it has fallen slightly behind schedule. Even so, the Army is now producing 40,000 shells a month, Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said at the Defense News Conference last month, adding that the plan is to reach 55,000 shells a month by the end of the year.

Yes, it's far less than in 1990 = because the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union broke up, and Poland and Czechoslovakia (to say nothing of East Germany) went from being Soviet satellite states to being independent (moving a possible front line with Russia a thousand miles away instead of being the German border). The Red Army went from having about 5 million active-duty forces in the mid-1980's to about a million today (well, fewer now). You need a military proportionate to the threats your country faces - and after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Germany faced a different and lesser threat profile. Now it's Poland that's the front-line NATO country, and the Russia army is a fifth of what it was. So, yes - they still have a force that's plenty big enough to get involved in conflicts on the Continent, if it came to that.

Absolutely. The dynamic changed with the fall of the USSR. Arguably, Putin is trying to reestablish it...sort of a USSR 2.0. I saw a Frontline program about him, and evidently he was devastated when the USSR fell. He was a relatively new, young, idealistic KGB officer. Poland is now the front line, and Germany is way back in the 'rear area'. Poland's defense expenditures reflect that, even though they are part of NATO.

The whole point of mutual defense treaties and alliances is that no one nation has to spend on a military to deter a larger adversary. You have several smaller militaries which, when working in unison, form a much larger and more effective force. So no member of NATO has to be able to repel Putin, just the entirety of the NATO alliance does. And -at least for now- it can.

I have a lot of sympathy for the innocent civilians whom have died (or been made homeless, or maimed, etc). But they still want to fight. We're not forcing them, they want Russia out. So I have no ethical qualms about supplying them arms to accomplish this. If it also helps us, then it should be easier to sell to our voters. Which is an important factor in a democracy. And it does help us a great deal. The sad thing is that the RW propaganda machine is convincing people that we aren't getting anything out of it. That shouldn't matter on some level, but it is factually incorrect regardless.

It’s not a “negotiation”; it’s a sell out

You're not in the room.

Here's what you're missing: there was no serious movement on peace talks until we dug in.

Here's what you're missing. If either combatant isn't in the room, you're not really having peace talks. Ukraine isn't in there, nor have they sent a proxy. So anything that comes out of this will be more like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, where at least one of the nations affected (i.e. Poland) had no say in it. That's a sell-out, not a peace talk.

Why will he stop there? Can you imagine Putin telling Trump he wants to reclaim all the Russian territory prior to 1824? Can you imagine Trump telling him to go pound sand?

-We had ~48,000 regular troops, backed by Colonial troops plus another 12,000 French.
The Brits had ~22,000 troops of their own with another 25k loyalists.

Dope, I appreciate you looking it up, but -

During the American Revolution, Britain relied primarily on its army to subdue the rebellious colonies. At its peak, the British army in North America had approximately 50,000 officers and men, constituting the largest expeditionary force sent overseas by any British governments.

The totals in North America specifically are listed in parentheses.

April 1775: 27,063 (6,991)
March 1776: 45,130 (14,374)
August 1777: 57,637 (23,694)
October 1778: 112,239 (52,561)
July 1779: 131,691 (47,624)
September 1780: 147,152 (44,554)
September 1781: 149,282 (47,301)
March 1782: 150,310 (47,223)

Not sure how many loyalists there are by year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_during_...

That's a sell-out, not a peace talk.

Agreed, plus we are extorting rare earths from them.

You're not in the room.

You can come out of your room now.

You can come out of your room now.

Thanks. You’re dismissed.

Thanks. You’re dismissed.

Go ahead and piss higher on the tree. That seems to be your game.

My prostate is old so I can’t manage it, but it was a stupid game even when I was younger.

That seems to be your game.

LOL at the world you people live in. You can't exchange ideas, so you fling poop instead.

Seriously. What are you afraid of?

On guerrilla warfare:

1. I was in Afghanistan in 2002. I remember well the hulks of the Soviet vehicles, rusting and bleaching in the sun. Anyone that doesn't think an asymmetric, small, less hierarchical force can't eject one with more firepower could stand to read about the last 250 years of Afghan history. They tossed the Brits, the Soviets, and now the US. Or if you need one more data point go back to Alexander the Great's era.

2. The term "guerrilla" was coined in what is actually, by my measure, the excursion that was Napoleon's second biggest defeat and the most worthy of study. His #1 defeat was naturally his incursion into Russia, where he was overextended, culminated, and came back to France with maybe 5-10% of the combat power from which he started with. Guerrilla came from the era when he invaded Spain. The Basque region's folks didn't take too kindly to this - and naturally even today Spain lets them do their own thing to a large degree - and over several years they whittled and ankle-bit his forces down to where they left, reasonably broke and dejected. Napoleon called it the fatal knot. There's a book called The Fatal Knot about this.

3. What we're watching today is a master class in lithe, adaptable forces smacking the snot out of a bigger, more kitted out, more linear force. The revolution in drones is so impressive that I wonder if we can ever have a functional Armor branch in the Army again, given their high lethality and low cost.

What we're watching today is a master class in lithe, adaptable forces smacking the snot out of a bigger, more kitted out, more linear force. The revolution in drones is so impressive that I wonder if we can ever have a functional Armor branch in the Army again, given their high lethality and low cost.

Absolutely. This.

Ukraine has basically removed as a threat one of the two strongest potential foes (Russia, the other being China). It will take a decade or more for Russia to recover.

I get the feeling you would really enjoy the YouTuber "Perun". He really gets into the nitty-gritty, and covers defense economics that most other outlets don't cover. It's a bit geeky, but if you're into this stuff, it's extremely informative and insightful.

Regarding armor, I think it will continue to be useful during fast-moving operations. "Blitzkrieg". Highly mobile artillery supporting infantry. But once that initial shock is over, they are expensive sitting ducks. I suspect we soon will see tanks having their own drones, probably for anti-drone activities, and to make the battlefield more transparent to them.

There hasn't really been a blitzkrieg type battle since 73 Easting (where then-Captain HR McMaster's troops basically destroyed an Iraqi armored brigade, over 30 years ago). But yes, there's times where the presence of armor is helpful to persuade/deter. I can think of a daytime raid we did to find a VBIED manufacturer, and having that on the corners of the objective, facing out, sent a certain message.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.