Russian invasion of Ukraine

[west didsblue]

No, I’m not conflating the two. I’m talking about the required spending of NATO countries to be part of the pact.



10 out of 30, with the USA 50% of a much larger GDP ahead of the UK, who were actually doing their fair share.

I’d call that pretty reliable!

That’s not what you said. You were using Trump’s definition of NATO spending and you’re better than that.

FWIW I agree with most of the rest of what you said.

 

[Irwell]

The US backs NATO purely out of self-interest. As much as I detest the actions of Russia and laugh at their propaganda around Nazis in Ukraine, biological weapon mosquitos and the like, some of the points about US hegemony are right on the nose and this fact has been clearly evident for a long time.

Intervention in WW2 was delayed repeatedly and done on terms to create the biggest advantage possible to the US in establishing US hegemony. It's interesting how countries such as Israel are gifted the resources they ask for, yet countries that were literally fighting for survival were given crippling repayment terms in exchange for assistance. The difference was that those countries were competitive with the US at the time and crippling them economically was beneficial to the US.

The USSR prevailing in Europe would have been catastrophic for US hegemony and so the US did what it had to do, setting up infrastructure to prevent it from happening. The USSR at the time couldn't have been held back with cast-off weapons and so this wasn't the approach. European states, still suffering from WW2, became beholden to the US as they couldn't afford to defend themselves at the time, much of it due to the onerous costs arising from US intervention in WW2.

Now look at the situation in Ukraine, the weapons exist to ensure Ukraine wins but the cast-offs are being used because Russia is comparatively weak when compared to the USSR in the day. It's more advantageous to the US that Ukraine doesn't win quickly because more of Russia's military strength can be sapped this way, at the expense of the Ukrainian people, so cast-offs are sent that are good enough to hold the line but not good enough to go on the attack. As soon as Ukraine start to make some progress militarily the resources from the US dry up and the almost stalemate situation returns.

So when has NATO Article 5 been activated? Once, in defence of the world's largest military against a rag-tag militia. The act they committed, while deplorable, pales into insignificance compared to the acts being committed based on US funding in Palestine and compared to the acts being committed based on the lack of US funding in Ukraine. Whilst responding to the attack was so urgent that it required the invocation of Article 5, they still had time to go into Iraq for some oil first, because you always have to be looking after that self-interest.

The US is not a white knight coming to the rescue, any assistance should be viewed as a trojan horse for US self-interest and interference. We need to be able to properly stand on our own feet and stop depending on US resources in Europe for defence. Just because it is there doesn't mean it will always be there, and being able to make use of those resources when you need to generally comes at a terrible price.

No doubt, Russia, China and others are more malign influences in the world, but is being less malign than Russia the benchmark for who you get into bed with now?

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

Then, don’t waste my time commenting.


Poppycock. We overspend through Europe’s need, not statutory requirement.


You assume 100M% wrong! What on earth…???


I hope that never happens.


That’d be a first for quite some time. Given the popularity of the major governments in Europe, that’d be a rabbit out of the hat. Standing up means hard decisions backed by money and a long term vision. Where are you going to find that in an increasingly timid Europe?

Well if the cap fits as they say, and you certainly sound like a MAGA Trump supporter, with your, we are bigger and better than you guys narrative bull shit!

By the way, its up to you, whether you waste your time reading and commenting, not me! Not the sharpest tool in the box are we?

Finally I suggest if your a little sensitive to people pointing out your own country's isolationism, and there have been plenty of examples of it over the decades, perhaps you should avoid this thread or put me and others on ignore.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The US backs NATO purely out of self-interest. As much as I detest the actions of Russia and laugh at their propaganda around Nazis in Ukraine, biological weapon mosquitos and the like, some of the points about US hegemony are right on the nose and this fact has been clearly evident for a long time.

Intervention in WW2 was delayed repeatedly and done on terms to create the biggest advantage possible to the US in establishing US hegemony. It's interesting how countries such as Israel are gifted the resources they ask for, yet countries that were literally fighting for survival were given crippling repayment terms in exchange for assistance. The difference was that those countries were competitive with the US at the time and crippling them economically was beneficial to the US.

The USSR prevailing in Europe would have been catastrophic for US hegemony and so the US did what it had to do, setting up infrastructure to prevent it from happening. The USSR at the time couldn't have been held back with cast-off weapons and so this wasn't the approach. European states, still suffering from WW2, became beholden to the US as they couldn't afford to defend themselves at the time, much of it due to the onerous costs arising from US intervention in WW2.

Now look at the situation in Ukraine, the weapons exist to ensure Ukraine wins but the cast-offs are being used because Russia is comparatively weak when compared to the USSR in the day. It's more advantageous to the US that Ukraine doesn't win quickly because more of Russia's military strength can be sapped this way, at the expense of the Ukrainian people, so cast-offs are sent that are good enough to hold the line but not good enough to go on the attack. As soon as Ukraine start to make some progress militarily the resources from the US dry up and the almost stalemate situation returns.

So when has NATO Article 5 been activated? Once, in defence of the world's largest military against a rag-tag militia. The act they committed, while deplorable, pales into insignificance compared to the acts being committed based on US funding in Palestine and compared to the acts being committed based on the lack of US funding in Ukraine. Whilst responding to the attack was so urgent that it required the invocation of Article 5, they still had time to go into Iraq for some oil first, because you always have to be looking after that self-interest.

The US is not a white knight coming to the rescue, any assistance should be viewed as a trojan horse for US self-interest and interference. We need to be able to properly stand on our own feet and stop depending on US resources in Europe for defence. Just because it is there doesn't mean it will always be there, and being able to make use of those resources when you need to generally comes at a terrible price.

No doubt, Russia, China and others are more malign influences in the world, but is being less malign than Russia the benchmark for who you get into bed with now?

It's possible that regarding a complex, continental size nation as a single sentient entity might not be the best way to analyse geopolitics.

 

[Metal Biker]

What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander?

The USA gets politically shit on every day on here (there’s more than one thread!), yet half of this forum comes over here for their hols and has a great time! Go figure.

Just as if someone over here is shitting on the UK, I point out all the good, I’m quick to point out the selective memory of those who do it to the USA.

And, make no mistake, there’s a metric shitton of problems in both places to keep that conversation going forever!

Yeah?

Well I ain't one of them. Here's an idea, instead of collectively shitting on the nation, call out the poster for their ignorance. Otherwise you're no better.

 

[Irwell]

It's possible that regarding a complex, continental size nation as a single sentient entity might not be the best way to analyse geopolitics.

I should probably have made it more clear that when I refer to the US in that post I refer to the federal Government rather than the nation as a whole, in much the same way as I would mean Russia when talking about the conflict in Ukraine. It's hard to separate the two completely in a democratic system though, if the people keep electing the politicians enacting these policies then these policies will keep getting enacted. When electing people for how well they've grown your economy, you need to be considering the impact on the people who got trampled along the way as well.

 

[Blue Maverick]

25 years

Then you should now, the pay is usually shite unless you get in the officer ranks and the conditions aren’t the best, the one thing the yanks do well is look after their troops.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

If true this is the US assisting Israel and holding back funds for Ukraine

The

Biden administration approved the transfer of 25 fifth-generation F-35I Adir fighters to

Israel.According to The Washington Post, the United States in recent days has quietly approved another agreement to supply Israel with 2,300 modern aviation munitions.The new weapons packages include over 1,800 2,000-pound MK84 bombs and 500 500-pound MK82 bombs."We continue to support Israel's right to defend itself," a White House spokesman said.

This will allow the IDF to kill an awfull lot more Gaza civilians!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

That’s not what you said. You were using Trump’s definition of NATO spending and you’re better than that.

FWIW I agree with most of the rest of what you said.

While I appreciate both the compliment and you telling me what I was and was not doing, while the phraseology might sound like it came out of Trump’s mouth, I gave you the FACTS. Both in GDP percentage terms and raw cash, the USA has propped up NATO for an age.

 

[mosssideblue]

Then you should now, the pay is usually shite unless you get in the officer ranks and the conditions aren’t the best, the one thing the yanks do well is look after their troops.

Will have to agree to disagree. Pay is far from being shite even in the non commissioned ranks.

Conditions are what should be expected in an armed force, and can range from being excellent to pretty crap