And their energy exports are 3 billion a year i believe i read
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
And their energy exports are 3 billion a year i believe i read
I thought it was really weird there was nothing!
This sure seems like a dumb move by Putin. Not NATOs fault that their group is better than whatever Russia is offering. Like being invaded.
Yeah this has been a concern of mine too. Without sounding too macabre, it would unfortunately be an opportune time for them to launch a similar invasion, knowing the international community would already be overwhelmingly preoccupied in dealing with what's happening in Ukraine.
Correct me if wrong but don't France spend a similar amount in both actual terms and GDP percentage terms on their military as the UK?
He will most likely prevail long term as well, I think. China surely will know soon how to protect their minorities in Taiwan.
And that is a reason why I'm mad at the US for not using the might of the US Navy as a deterrent against Russia (just by being there) while the Seventh Fleet (based at Yokosuka, Japan) is often used to deter China whenever the latter goes saber rattling vs. Japan/Taiwan.
Last edited:
Don't really understand why Macron still feels there is any benefit in continuing his failed dialogue with Putin.
It certainly is not going to change his mind is it.
All it does is pandering to Putin vanity. He is creaming himself with all the international attention vying to be seen talking to him.
Ah, the atrocious West and their atrocities!
I think I had the person who started it on ignore, which made it disappear.
I think this is quite far fetched. Don't tgink this situation has anything to do with who was in charge on the European side of things. Actually I believe Kramp-Karrenbauer is roght and this is more of a long term consequence of European powers not spending enough on their military budget. Ironically this is probably one of the very few points of criticism Trump got right. In the end,to cynical people, diplomaticy is only intriguing if a direct confrontation is signifcantly less desirable.
You are correct. I thought the graph I was looking at was in descending order as it had the US and UK at the top, but it turns out it isn't
I did think I swear there are more...Credit to France, Poland, Greece, Croatia, Lithuania and Estonia. A poor showing when some of these countries are managing to achieve it with far less GDP per capita than some others.
Macron has looked a clown throughout this whole saga. I can’t believe the US is too happy with him running around and acting like he calls the shots.
No direct sources to link on this but apparently Zmiinyi Island has just now fallen after being bombarded by cruisers and fending off landings all day.
Type that in google maps and see the size of it, where it is. Stories will be told of that one.
Type that in google maps and see the size of it, where it is. Stories will be told of that one.
Apparently urban fights are completely different than battles in open field and much tougher for the aggressor.
Same ol' Bullshit Boris.
It definitely is a longterm issue and one reason being european countries not spending enough on their military budget. That was one of the very few points Trump had I completely agreed with, honestly, and I was laughed at.
I still think Merkel could have made a huge difference, especially compared to someone like Scholz. I'm not even a Merkel fan, yet, if anything, I admired her for keeping stability and peace, even in pretty dark times. She was very good at that - her skillset and personality is something we're missing right now.
Europe hasnt being prepared for the transition to sustainable energy too. Putting all the eggs towards Russian gas for the transition really weakens Europe. Too many corrupt politicians being lobbied and caring for their investments for Europe to be proactive instead of reactive.
I think in the case of Russia there's plenty of air bases in Europe that can provide more airpower than any carriers would. But I agree in principle, the US should be making much much bigger deployments to Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, several times what they've deployed so far in terms of Army and USAF forces.
Yep. My point is solely about the ongoing status of those states (particularly France and the UK whose fortunes have drastically diminished). So that the UK justifies spending 130 billion on replacing its nuclear capacity with quotes likes "...having a nuclear deterrent is a very important part of our defence policy. It’s also an important part of being a tier-one nation and being in the UN Security Council.” That's one quote from one official party member, but every time the debate is had the link between nuclear capacity and continued membership is always made. And it makes sense. What else do France and the UK have over similar nations these days except being historically placed to avail of nuclear technology? So that's my point, basically, which I have made a mess of by conflating with something else.
They need to get every one of these lads calling home to their mothers to tell them the truth of it.
Yep, the "system" would be overloaded and the rest of the world would be hard pressed to respond at all. The diversity of China's economy and interdependence is also a bigger problem when responding.
I'd say it's not a necessity but just an excuse used by these countries to justify spending. All five permanent members have a veto so they're thoroughly entrenched there. With those vetoes, no one is removing them and no one is joining them as permanent members.
Even the Lofoten Island map in Battlefield V looks bigger than that. Respect to the defenders.
Is there not a distinct danger that an EU Army would seriously degrade NATO.
Because if you take Germany, she has not been committing the required 2% of GDP spending.
And you could end up with Germany having to fund an Army as part of:
NATO.
EU Army.
German Army.
And why just an EU Army.
An Army needs an Airforce to transport its troops and equipment.
It really should be replaced with some sort of super majority needed for certain issues. But again, can't change a system when those who changing it would disadvantage have a veto.
Yeah, could be right. I also wonder if the permanent members are as permanent as previously thought. It would require dismantling the current apparatus, but it is impossible to justify when you think about it.
Wasn't it said that Russia sent conscripts among their "green men" in 2014? That guy does not look like a professional and adult soldier.
There will be no wake-up call in Germany. We have made ourselves comfortable in a niche for decades: talking about morality and human rights, doing business with despots and letting the Americans or other Europeans do the dirty work. "Staying in the conversation" is the only strategy Germany knows.
Yes, it was the only time Trump spoke the truth in his life. Germany in particular is a disgrace - 80m people, Europe’s largest economy and tries to pretend that it’s Denmark.
KSA lobby is strong in DC.
The actual reason France and the UK are permanent members and will remain is that despite what some may think they still have two of the most powerful armies in the world despite being relatively small countries. When you add to that the fact that despite all bickerings the US, France and the UK will most likely always be on the same side, one way or the other they will help each other regardless of how immoral the endeavour is which means that it's a great thing for the west and the US to have them on the permanent council, there is no way to turn that council toward China or Russia.
An EU army is a really dumb idea, for many reasons. The big ones being a lack of command structure, slow decision making, lack of democratic oversight and duplication with NATO.
NATO already exists. The nations of Europe just need to properly fund, train and equip their militaries and thereby strengthen NATO and the defence capabilities of Europe.
All this EU army talk is just a distraction, and largely being pushed by France who have always been reluctant members of NATO.
An EU army would be a total disaster. For one, there would never be unanimity to take military action since various countries may choose to not participate if a particular war doesn't suit them. It would also deprive European nations of the most powerful military in the world (the US) contributing assets and resources to support operations.
No, a distinct danger wouldn't necessarily degrade NATO, but it would mean european independence. It would maybe - relatively speaking in that regard - weaken the US and the UK's role in NATO business. Germany obviously has not contributed enough to international security, absolutely true, it should have done long time ago and it really shows. You have no idea in what pathetic state our troops are - it's unbelievable.
I want a european super army especially mentioned for the reason above: being less dependant on the US. I don't want the other side of the atlantic to pull the strings for our continent, I want a certain degree of autonomy, which we currently don't have. Other than that, I'd say that a european super army is another necessary step towards a grandeuropean state, which should be the ultimate goal in the next 20-30 years. The world powers are not reliable partners, as Trump has shown, as Putin now shows and as China keeps on showing. Our best and most reliable allies lie within this continent. We've got enough economic power to make it happen and we really should take matters in our own hands. NATO can only profit from this! And should not be touched, this pact needs to stay intact.
Why not expel the most senior too? Sounds like a bit of a half measure.
A not-centralized EU army would be a total disaster, absolutely true. My idea of a european army wouldn't be centrally commanded.