“Nasty” was the last of the real ones.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Curious.. now that more folks realize that Russia is not a conventional military threat to NATO, let alone the US homeland... has anyone come around to my way of thinking? Ie... There is insufficient return on investment for the US tax payer to justify borrowing tens and tens of billions to fight a proxy war against a third rate country that doesn't threaten us directly, so we should allow Europe to be primarily responsible for European security.
I’m don’t think Russia agrees with you. Both sides need to agree to keep the peace.
Seems to me Russia is on the defence in Ukraine. What evidence convinces you Russia thinks their military can take on NATO after Ukraine? Do you really believe Russia is going to attack NATO? If so, why? And do you think our NATO partners could defend themselves without our leading the defence?
Last edited:
Russia is still in the country they invaded and haven’t given up. I’ve seen nothing to suggest they will. Instead, I think they think they can wait out the weak, short attention span western alliance led by us. That we will do what you are advocating for…pull back our support. The USA remains the necessary partner.
All those thousands and thousands of nuke warheads in Russia aren’t pointed at Brazil. I’m fine with degrading Russia in Ukraine. Pennies on the dollar in the big picture.
I really don’t understand what you think is the upside to your way of thinking. Are you really that concerned about the trivial costs of breaking the nose of one of the biggest disruptors on the world stage? Making Russia impotent short of nuclear war is a huge win for everyone besides Russia.
No. Most of what we're giving is write downs of existing stocks that will expire anyway on the shelf. Better to use an old TOW missile up against a T-80 than have it languish in storage and then be disposed of. We're also gaining significant knowledge of modern peer to peer conflict in the 21st century without spilling American blood.
What are we doing in Ukraine that lessens the threat of Russia using nukes on us? Do you think a destabilized Russia helps that?
Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my short recap of my position. I am not just talking about the $100 billion we've spent in Ukraine (which itself is not "trivial"). I am talking about removing our permanent presence from Europe generally and cutting our military spending by $200+ billion a year in light of us only having 1 near peer competitor - China.
Your assertion that we are making Russia impotent is just false. Russia was already impotent.. we just didn't know it.
But what are we doing in Europe that is necessary to prevent those nukes, bombers, and subs from being used against the US tax payer? Do you believe Germany, France, and the rest of NATO cannot deter a third rate country on their own?
On Russia being impotent, the problem is they don't know it. So they go on torturing and killing Ukrainians, stealing their children (I can't imagine a much worse war crime), blowing up dams, prepping to destroy a nuclear power plant, etc.
When you have your enemy down, you don't let them up. You don't ease off. You don't give them hope. You pile on. You keep them down until they realize you aren't going to let them up unless something changes. Russia is not there yet. They don't know they've lost (because they haven't). The best outcome for everyone is not an almost even fight that drags on. It is a one-sided fight that ends early and saves lots of lives, Russian and Ukrainian.
No, I don't want them destabilized. Also, no, I don't want them to think they can play the nuclear card and slowing but surely take Ukraine at whatever cost. Then Moldova. Then name your Baltic Country. And so on.
Yes to your question.
And geography matters - kinda need countries like UK, Iceland, Spain, France, Netherlands, and Norway to assist keeping those bombers and subs at bay. Ironically, they are NATO countries.
Fair enough. I also want Russia to lose completely. But tell me this... what do you think our European partners response would be if we, in private, made it clear we have provided all the support that we can, and then somehow the Russians turn the tide and start advancing? Do you think they would step up and fill our void to provide for their own security? If so, would that not be better?
The idea they will attack the Baltics next, to me, is absolutely absurd and not even up for debate. Or any other country for that matter. It is just not a credible argument. Would love to hear why you think otherwise.
Why is it that you think our NATO allies cannot deter/defend against the incredibly inept Russian military, with us backing them if war breaks out?
I don’t know what they would do. I’m not 100% sure it would be better. Having them dependent on us, which means we have tremendous influence and control on what goes on, is not a bad thing. Leadership does have a price.
the Baltics disagree with you. As their neighbors and former abused partners, I think they know the truth better than you or I.
I respect your opinion, your questions are on point. We both hope Russia tanks.
Isn't that what NATO is for? I guess I am not following.
Also from a quantitative aspect, Russia outnumbered France and Germany 5-1 in soldiers for their respective army (pre-Ukraine #s for Russia), so no, I do not think that a combined French / German effort (assuming they were perfectly aligned politically) could do what NATO does.
I got it, Russia's invasion was inept, but they still are holding territory and their lines are not crumbling under a Ukrainian counter-offensive. Even if this gets fought to a draw with a large DMZ - my guess is that they will still have more troops (OBTW they will be battle hardened) than the combined French/German Armies who do not have experience in large combined arms war.