If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   You know, it was just the other day that I was saying "Boy, I wish we had a European war to fight. I miss the good ol' days" Well, the NATO chief has the same feelings   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 61
    More: Scary, NATO, Eastern Europe, United States, Europe, DigitalGlobe, Anthony Cordesman, combat readiness, East Ukraine  
•       •       •

5913 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Apr 2014 at 2:29 PM (32 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



61 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-10 01:48:21 PM  
i62.tinypic.com

Better get those power generators set up fast...

/hell march soundtrack starts to play
 
2014-04-10 02:10:28 PM  

gopher321: [i62.tinypic.com image 640x480]

Better get those power generators set up fast...

/hell march soundtrack starts to play


goddamn, now I need to reinstall RA2.

"Yuri...Yuri Yuri. Can't we all just...get along?"

/seriously, loved those FMVs. Some of the best of the series
 
2014-04-10 02:38:21 PM  
Is subby trolling?
 
2014-04-10 02:43:13 PM  
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

End of story.
 
2014-04-10 02:43:14 PM  
Does this mean we'll get some decent farking James Bond movies now?
 
2014-04-10 02:45:10 PM  
He's retiring?
 
2014-04-10 02:46:24 PM  

karlandtanya: Does this mean we'll get some decent farking James Bond movies now?


Time to watch Wolverines again.
 
2014-04-10 02:49:15 PM  
So... we are going to protect the former Soviet Republics that joined NATO.

Good. I have been fearing that our ostrich lobby would dominate and we'd only take sides once the rest of the world was burning. Again.

Letting empire builders build empires is a bad thing.
 
2014-04-10 02:50:40 PM  
It's a good thing that the world is a more stable place now, where the US can take a back seat to other nations in terms of miltary response to unprovoked aggression and threat of force to prevent such aggression, and downsize our military accordingly... since who really ever invades anyone anymore anyway and why would we need such a military in the first place?
 
2014-04-10 02:51:29 PM  
It isn't like we're invading Iraq or something.  We're moving troops into countries that we have a signed defense treaty with, and that Russia has been making threatening noises too.  It's similar to the function of US troops in Korea.  If the Russians want to move into someplace like Estonia, they have to decide if attacking American troops is worth it.  It is probably the cheapest, easiest way to prevent Russian moves into those countries.  No combat needed, just moving a few units that are already in Europe.  Honestly, basing them in places like Estonia, with it's lower cost of living would probably be cheaper than keeping them in Germany anyway.
 
2014-04-10 02:54:03 PM  
dammitsomuch...Putin, you arrogant ass.
 
2014-04-10 02:54:32 PM  

BolloxReader: So... we are going to protect the former Soviet Republics that joined NATO.

Good. I have been fearing that our ostrich lobby would dominate and we'd only take sides once the rest of the world was burning. Again.

Letting empire builders build empires is a bad thing.


Yeah. Why let them do that when we've got defense contractors slavering for no-bid contracts?
 
2014-04-10 02:57:00 PM  

devildog123: It isn't like we're invading Iraq or something.  We're moving troops into countries that we have a signed defense treaty with, and that Russia has been making threatening noises too.  It's similar to the function of US troops in Korea.  If the Russians want to move into someplace like Estonia, they have to decide if attacking American troops is worth it.  It is probably the cheapest, easiest way to prevent Russian moves into those countries.  No combat needed, just moving a few units that are already in Europe.  Honestly, basing them in places like Estonia, with it's lower cost of living would probably be cheaper than keeping them in Germany anyway.


We have to think of the well-being of our troops, though... namely, are the 20-something-year-old Estonian women as hot as the 20-something-year-old German women our troops are used to?

I propose multiple pictures from either argument be presented here as evidence.
 
2014-04-10 02:58:07 PM  
Split Ukraine into east and west, take Kyiv into NATO, re-establish the Iron Curtain on the Dniepr, let the east wallow in poverty and jealousy
 
2014-04-10 03:03:01 PM  
Welp, at least a conventional war will give us a use for all those planes, helicopters, ships and tanks we've been spending billions on.

/Also good news for the bumper sticker industry
 
2014-04-10 03:06:19 PM  

Intrepid00: Is subby trolling?


me? never.....

^_^
 
2014-04-10 03:20:24 PM  
Oh noes!  We're moving troops from one NATO country to another!  That's totally unprecedented!
 
2014-04-10 03:24:57 PM  
Does anyone REALLY think that the US will do nothing if Russia postures to attack a NATO ally? Failing to uphold Article 5 would instantly lose the US ANY credibility in international treaties and dealings, and would usher in an era of Post-US Geopolitics.
 
2014-04-10 03:44:47 PM  

hardinparamedic: Does anyone REALLY think that the US will do nothing if Russia postures to attack a NATO ally? Failing to uphold Article 5 would instantly lose the US ANY credibility in international treaties and dealings, and would usher in an era of Post-US Geopolitics.


So we need to either have Cold War 2 or World War 3?
 
2014-04-10 03:47:23 PM  

hardinparamedic: Does anyone REALLY think that the US will do nothing if Russia postures to attack a NATO ally? Failing to uphold Article 5 would instantly lose the US ANY credibility in international treaties and dealings, and would usher in an era of Post-US Geopolitics.


Basically, this.

We're obligated. And to ignore this particular obligation would be to undermine nato entirely.

If that happened...anything goes. NATO, not the UN, is responsible for us having gone 70 years without a world war.

Id also note that its likely that nato, not nuclear deterrance, is responsible for basically zero military action being tested against us or europe for that same 70 years.

Nato falls apart, no more relatively comfy safe proxy wars like our parents had in south asia or us in the middle east.

It sounds farked, but if we dont respond in kind it could easily end up more disasterous than immediate military escalation.

/and this is coming from a pacifist :p
 
2014-04-10 03:49:24 PM  

hardinparamedic: Does anyone REALLY think that the US will do nothing if Russia postures to attack a NATO ally? Failing to uphold Article 5 would instantly lose the US ANY credibility in international treaties and dealings, and would usher in an era of Post-US Geopolitics.


Yeah no kidding. I think the only person trotting out that gem is Grahor.
 
2014-04-10 03:50:59 PM  
I wholeheartedly support moving a small, symbolic contingent of NATO troops into Eastern Europe to serve as human shield for Eastern European countries.
 
2014-04-10 03:51:05 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Id also note that its likely that nato, not nuclear deterrance, is responsible for basically zero military action being tested against us or europe for that same 70 years.


The two are not mutually exclusive.
 
2014-04-10 03:58:23 PM  
I'll move my family to Guatamala before you get a rifle in my son's hands. Let this farker send his kid to the eastern front.
 
2014-04-10 04:00:45 PM  

Nick Nostril: I'll move my family to Guatamala before you get a rifle in my son's hands. Let this farker send his kid to the eastern front.


LOL, you think you will be allowed in.
 
2014-04-10 04:02:25 PM  

Seraphym: devildog123: It isn't like we're invading Iraq or something.  We're moving troops into countries that we have a signed defense treaty with, and that Russia has been making threatening noises too.  It's similar to the function of US troops in Korea.  If the Russians want to move into someplace like Estonia, they have to decide if attacking American troops is worth it.  It is probably the cheapest, easiest way to prevent Russian moves into those countries.  No combat needed, just moving a few units that are already in Europe.  Honestly, basing them in places like Estonia, with it's lower cost of living would probably be cheaper than keeping them in Germany anyway.

We have to think of the well-being of our troops, though... namely, are the 20-something-year-old Estonian women as hot as the 20-something-year-old German women our troops are used to?

I propose multiple pictures from either argument be presented here as evidence.


I like the way you think. Someone hand this man an award!
 
2014-04-10 04:04:16 PM  

MurphyMurphy: It sounds farked, but if we dont respond in kind it could easily end up more disasterous than immediate military escalation.


I couldn't agree more. The consequences of NOT fulfilling our mutual defense treaties are far and away more dangerous than the immediate conflict. I feel the same way about our seeming abandonment of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The consequences of not ensuring Ukraine's territorial integrity will undermine our ability to successfully continue the policy nuclear non-proliferation.
 
2014-04-10 04:08:24 PM  

Seraphym: We have to think of the well-being of our troops, though... namely, are the 20-something-year-old Estonian women as hot as the 20-something-year-old German women our troops are used to?

I propose multiple pictures from either argument be presented here as evidence.


This sounds like good, productive political discourse to me as well.
Thank you for keeping things on the right track.
 
2014-04-10 04:14:48 PM  

Intrepid00: karlandtanya: Does this mean we'll get some decent farking James Bond movies now?

Time to watch Wolverines again.


What does this have to do with X-Men?

Now "Red Dawn", that would be an appropriate movie to watch right now.

/the original, not the crap-tastic remake.
 
2014-04-10 04:31:12 PM  

Seraphym: It's a good thing that the world is a more stable place now, where the US can take a back seat to other nations in terms of miltary response to unprovoked aggression and threat of force to prevent such aggression, and downsize our military accordingly... since who really ever invades anyone anymore anyway and why would we need such a military in the first place?


Don't look at me, I was told it was "the end of history" some years ago.

/I wonder if Fukuyama shows his face in public these days...
 
2014-04-10 04:32:34 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Oh noes!  We're moving troops from one NATO country to another!  That's totally unprecedented!


We're just taking a troop move.  The question is, will Putin's card fill out a set?

/how many armies is a set up to these days?
 
2014-04-10 04:34:43 PM  

Grahor: I wholeheartedly support moving a small, symbolic contingent of NATO troops into Eastern Europe to serve as human shield for Eastern European countries.


Preferably made up primarily of German troops.
 
2014-04-10 04:34:55 PM  

Marmilman: MurphyMurphy: It sounds farked, but if we dont respond in kind it could easily end up more disasterous than immediate military escalation.

I couldn't agree more. The consequences of NOT fulfilling our mutual defense treaties are far and away more dangerous than the immediate conflict. I feel the same way about our seeming abandonment of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The consequences of not ensuring Ukraine's territorial integrity will undermine our ability to successfully continue the policy nuclear non-proliferation.


Concur.

And, it's yet another reason I was opposed to intervening in Iraq.

Spend troops and money someplace optional, and you may be caught short later, when it's less optional.
 
2014-04-10 04:39:04 PM  
Fun fact, until Obama became President, NATO had no concrete plans how to defend new members.
Thanks, Daft
 
2014-04-10 04:42:50 PM  
As much as they would like to weasel out of it, NATO is treaty bound to come to ukraine's assistance. I am however, starting to resent how they use American troops whenever they want to make a show of force. If war in Europe is brewing, maybe they should think about building up their own militaries.
 
2014-04-10 04:43:52 PM  

Marmilman: Yeah no kidding. I think the only person trotting out that gem is Grahor.


And he wonders why people accuse him of being a shill.
 
2014-04-10 04:44:09 PM  

Marmilman: Yeah no kidding. I think the only person trotting out that gem is Grahor.


Yes, and my reasons are:

1) Latvia will be overwhelmed in less than 8 hours, before NATO will even be able to move troops to its borders. When the West will learn about it, Russian troops would be digging in and establishing positions all through Latvia, including all the major cities.
2) Russia will have a lot of very good excuses. They are there only to provide some protection, until proper elections-referendums would be held, and so on. Russia will not, of course, attack unless such excuses are plausible.
3) Latvian government would ask for calmness and peaceful resolution, declare that they are quitting NATO and absolving NATO from necessity to follow through on agreements, and so on. For a number of reasons. One of them is because you do what you are told to do in such situation.
4) Poland and other East European government would be terrified beyond measure not only by the fact that Russia have attacked, by also by the understanding that actual fighting is going to happen on their territories. 2000 kilometers of the Eastern European border, on which Russian troops are massing out, while Russia is screaming that they aren't looking for war, in fact they want only peace, and will not make another step, if only provocations from NATO would not force its hand.

USA&Europe doesn't have enough troops on hand to provide security for the whole border; they can't attack just yet, right? And if they'll attack, they can't just move infantry in, fighting building-after-building, like modern day Stalingrad, right? And bombing the cities will destroy the same population they are trying to save, right? And Stalingrad scenario isn't merciful to civilians, either. And all the Eastern European states plead for providing their security first. So they'll hesitate.

Oh, and have I mentioned that all Russian nuclear subs are somewhere in positions around the US? Just in case, you know. Nobody is going to use them, obviously. They are just doing some military exercises.

5) Nothing will happen to NATO if they'll decide not to attack in such situation. What, is Romania going to proudly leave NATO and proclaim that it'll stand alone? NATO members in Eastern Europe will simply demand US and Germany's personnel on their borders, and building an equivalent of Magino line through Eastern Europe. After all, it's a bonding experience, deciding, all together, to throw someone to wolves. NATO will simply be stronger and more united in future, with US troops taking their rightful place on the borders of all the Eastern European countries. Kind of hostages, guaranteeing that "those were the last losses".

And as for the shame of leaving Latvia to wolves? Well, the shame doesn't kill, as opposed to bombs and bullets. You can live with shame. It will make you a better, stronger person...

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that kind of development.
 
2014-04-10 04:53:21 PM  

PunGent: Marmilman: MurphyMurphy: It sounds farked, but if we dont respond in kind it could easily end up more disasterous than immediate military escalation.

I couldn't agree more. The consequences of NOT fulfilling our mutual defense treaties are far and away more dangerous than the immediate conflict. I feel the same way about our seeming abandonment of the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. The consequences of not ensuring Ukraine's territorial integrity will undermine our ability to successfully continue the policy nuclear non-proliferation.

Concur.

And, it's yet another reason I was opposed to intervening in Iraq.

Spend troops and money someplace optional, and you may be caught short later, when it's less optional.


So, so true.
 
2014-04-10 05:09:57 PM  

Grahor: Oh, and have I mentioned that all Russian nuclear subs are somewhere in positions around the US? Just in case, you know. Nobody is going to use them, obviously. They are just doing some military exercises.


You do realize the United States navy knows where those subs are at every step of the way, and has at least one attack sub shadowing them - and has done so since they started putting boomers off the coast, right?

The US Navy spent billions and decades building the SOSUS network.

Grahor: 5) Nothing will happen to NATO if they'll decide not to attack in such situation. What, is Romania going to proudly leave NATO and proclaim that it'll stand alone? NATO members in Eastern Europe will simply demand US and Germany's personnel on their borders, and building an equivalent of Magino line through Eastern Europe. After all, it's a bonding experience, deciding, all together, to throw someone to wolves. NATO will simply be stronger and more united in future, with US troops taking their rightful place on the borders of all the Eastern European countries. Kind of hostages, guaranteeing that "those were the last losses".


You're insane if you think that NATO won't provide a military response if Russia attacks a member country, and that the US won't provide a response as well. The whole of NATO's combined strength is the fact that the US will intervene alongside of member nations, as required under the Article 5 Invocation. The US will  literally and outright lose any political influence internationally it has through NATO, or it's threat of military intervention, if it does not.
 
2014-04-10 05:12:52 PM  

devildog123: It isn't like we're invading Iraq or something.  We're moving troops into countries that we have a signed defense treaty with, and that Russia has been making threatening noises too.  It's similar to the function of US troops in Korea.  If the Russians want to move into someplace like Estonia, they have to decide if attacking American troops is worth it.  It is probably the cheapest, easiest way to prevent Russian moves into those countries.  No combat needed, just moving a few units that are already in Europe.  Honestly, basing them in places like Estonia, with it's lower cost of living would probably be cheaper than keeping them in Germany anyway.


Russia controls the gas...it will be the regular citizens if Europe who freeze next winter.
 
2014-04-10 05:15:40 PM  

hardinparamedic: Grahor: Oh, and have I mentioned that all Russian nuclear subs are somewhere in positions around the US? Just in case, you know. Nobody is going to use them, obviously. They are just doing some military exercises.

You do realize the United States navy knows where those subs are at every step of the way, and has at least one attack sub shadowing them - and has done so since they started putting boomers off the coast, right?

The US Navy spent billions and decades building the SOSUS network.

Grahor: 5) Nothing will happen to NATO if they'll decide not to attack in such situation. What, is Romania going to proudly leave NATO and proclaim that it'll stand alone? NATO members in Eastern Europe will simply demand US and Germany's personnel on their borders, and building an equivalent of Magino line through Eastern Europe. After all, it's a bonding experience, deciding, all together, to throw someone to wolves. NATO will simply be stronger and more united in future, with US troops taking their rightful place on the borders of all the Eastern European countries. Kind of hostages, guaranteeing that "those were the last losses".

You're insane if you think that NATO won't provide a military response if Russia attacks a member country, and that the US won't provide a response as well. The whole of NATO's combined strength is the fact that the US will intervene alongside of member nations, as required under the Article 5 Invocation. The US will  literally and outright lose any political influence internationally it has through NATO, or it's threat of military intervention, if it does not.


I guess it's war then, too bad we are bound by unchangeable treaties.

It's WWI all over again.
 
2014-04-10 05:21:07 PM  
As an American, I support NATO and its mission.  If we have to send troops, then we have to send troops.  That is really all there is to it.

/It's far cheaper in the long run to push back hard now
 
2014-04-10 05:26:42 PM  

Grahor: Marmilman: Yeah no kidding. I think the only person trotting out that gem is Grahor.


Yes, and my reasons are:

1) Latvia will be overwhelmed in less than 8 hours, before NATO will even be able to move troops to its borders. When the West will learn about it, Russian troops would be digging in and establishing positions all through Latvia, including all the major cities.
2) Russia will have a lot of very good excuses. They are there only to provide some protection, until proper elections-referendums would be held, and so on. Russia will not, of course, attack unless such excuses are plausible.
3) Latvian government would ask for calmness and peaceful resolution, declare that they are quitting NATO and absolving NATO from necessity to follow through on agreements, and so on. For a number of reasons. One of them is because you do what you are told to do in such situation.
4) Poland and other East European government would be terrified beyond measure not only by the fact that Russia have attacked, by also by the understanding that actual fighting is going to happen on their territories. 2000 kilometers of the Eastern European border, on which Russian troops are massing out, while Russia is screaming that they aren't looking for war, in fact they want only peace, and will not make another step, if only provocations from NATO would not force its hand.

USA&Europe doesn't have enough troops on hand to provide security for the whole border; they can't attack just yet, right? And if they'll attack, they can't just move infantry in, fighting building-after-building, like modern day Stalingrad, right? And bombing the cities will destroy the same population they are trying to save, right? And Stalingrad scenario isn't merciful to civilians, either. And all the Eastern European states plead for providing their security first. So they'll hesitate.

Oh, and have I mentioned that all Russian nuclear subs are somewhere in positions around the US? Just in case, you know. Nobody is ...


1) In the event of a surprise attack (unlikely) NATO troops may be late to the party, but their missiles and air defense capabilities won't be.

2) It doesn't matter what Russia's excuse is. Latvia already has a defense treaty with NATO. Putin's propaganda may work well on his own citizens and those who are reached by the arm of Russian media, but it clearly doesn't work with anyone else.

3) I highly doubt Latvia would voluntarily remove itself of NATO's protection so as to make Russia's hypothetical takeover transition more peacefully. Especially since Latvia has already banned Russian television channels, proving they do not believe Russia's conduct is remotely acceptable. Besides, even if they were to quit NATO, they would need to do it before any aggressive acts against their sovereignty.

4) Eastern European countries are already terrified. You know who's scared the most? The ones NOT in NATO. Even Sweden is worried that they're a high target on Russia's list. And again, nobody gives a shiat what Russia is saying when their actions speak differently. Like right now.

NATO doesn't need to man the entire border to provide adequate security. And Russia can't afford any long term military engagements. While there would certainly be collateral damage in the resulting hypothetical conflict, such damage would be FAR LESS than the ensuing collateral damage that would certainly result from future wars once countries realize that a mutual defense treaty with NATO (and the United States, for that matter) is worthless.
 
2014-04-10 05:36:31 PM  

Marmilman: Grahor: Marmilman: Yeah no kidding. I think the only person trotting out that gem is Grahor.


Yes, and my reasons are:

1) Latvia will be overwhelmed in less than 8 hours, before NATO will even be able to move troops to its borders. When the West will learn about it, Russian troops would be digging in and establishing positions all through Latvia, including all the major cities.
2) Russia will have a lot of very good excuses. They are there only to provide some protection, until proper elections-referendums would be held, and so on. Russia will not, of course, attack unless such excuses are plausible.
3) Latvian government would ask for calmness and peaceful resolution, declare that they are quitting NATO and absolving NATO from necessity to follow through on agreements, and so on. For a number of reasons. One of them is because you do what you are told to do in such situation.
4) Poland and other East European government would be terrified beyond measure not only by the fact that Russia have attacked, by also by the understanding that actual fighting is going to happen on their territories. 2000 kilometers of the Eastern European border, on which Russian troops are massing out, while Russia is screaming that they aren't looking for war, in fact they want only peace, and will not make another step, if only provocations from NATO would not force its hand.

USA&Europe doesn't have enough troops on hand to provide security for the whole border; they can't attack just yet, right? And if they'll attack, they can't just move infantry in, fighting building-after-building, like modern day Stalingrad, right? And bombing the cities will destroy the same population they are trying to save, right? And Stalingrad scenario isn't merciful to civilians, either. And all the Eastern European states plead for providing their security first. So they'll hesitate.

Oh, and have I mentioned that all Russian nuclear subs are somewhere in positions around the US? Just in case, you know. No ...


1. RSVP +1
 
2014-04-10 05:37:41 PM  

Maul555: As an American, I support NATO and its mission.  If we have to send troops, then we have to send troops.  That is really all there is to it.

/It's far cheaper in the long run to push back hard now


I applaud your bravery in being amongst the first troops to bravely charge into the Russian lines.

You courage will long be remembered.
 
2014-04-10 05:51:58 PM  

mcreadyblue: Maul555: As an American, I support NATO and its mission.  If we have to send troops, then we have to send troops.  That is really all there is to it.

/It's far cheaper in the long run to push back hard now

I applaud your bravery in being amongst the first troops to bravely charge into the Russian lines.

You courage will long be remembered.


You realize they aren't talking about an attack on the Russians or anything, right?  The Russians might be willing to push around the few thousand Latvian or Estonian infantry if push came to shove.  If there was a battalion or two of US armor, or a squadron or two of F-15's that they'd have to shoot through, most likely, they won't.  The cost of moving those troops from Germany now, and putting them in some barracks in eastern Europe is far cheaper than letting the Russians attack them, so we have to reply with force, rather than a rebasing.
 
2014-04-10 06:05:26 PM  

Marmilman: NATO doesn't need to man the entire border to provide adequate security. And Russia can't afford any long term military engagements.


I'm not talking about current situation. Currently Russia is in no position to threaten Baltics, nor it shows any inclination to do so. Any such action may happen only in a different situation.

For example, a necessary prerequisite for any attack on Baltics would be compete integration of Byelorussia as part of Russia, significant extension of trade connections of Russia with China and consequent improvement of economic situation in Russia, serious militarization and farther fascification of Russia. Only if Russia would feel that it can allow _complete_ isolation from the West (including complete cessation of the West purchasing any oil and gas from Russia), any attack on Baltics is possible.

My described situation is only possible if the world situation would change in this way. There is pretty much zero chance of Russia attacking Baltics at all without this change.

mcreadyblue: I guess it's war then, too bad we are bound by unchangeable treaties.


No treaty is unchangeable... If those wanting to change it are powerful enough.

Remember Alberto Gonzales? Who would have thought that supposedly unchangeable laws about torture are actually easily changed guidelines...

And those international treaties which define a person either an enemy combatant, for whom there is a set of rules, or a criminal for whom there is another? What do you know, apparently, if you check under the sofa of international treaties, you can find the category of illegal combatants, for whom there are no rules, who may, you know. Just disappear, forever, and never see their relatives and friends again; who would not be judged of any crimes and punished for anything they've done, who would not be able to defend themselves against any accusation, who would just... spend the rest of their lives in a prison on an island. Until they'll die from old age. Like in a fraking anti-utopia sci-fi novel.

Unthinkable, once. And yet entirely reasonable and acceptable, today. Rules change. Something unthinkable becomes entirely acceptable, completely reasonable.
 
2014-04-10 06:10:30 PM  

devildog123: If there was a battalion or two of US armor, or a squadron or two of F-15's that they'd have to shoot through, most likely, they won't.  The cost of moving those troops from Germany now, and putting them in some barracks in eastern Europe is far cheaper than letting the Russians attack them, so we have to reply with force, rather than a rebasing.


Yep, I completely agree with it, and I also consider it entirely reasonable. Sort of a human shield.
 
2014-04-10 06:19:59 PM  

Grahor: Marmilman: NATO doesn't need to man the entire border to provide adequate security. And Russia can't afford any long term military engagements.

I'm not talking about current situation. Currently Russia is in no position to threaten Baltics, nor it shows any inclination to do so. Any such action may happen only in a different situation.

For example, a necessary prerequisite for any attack on Baltics would be compete integration of Byelorussia as part of Russia, significant extension of trade connections of Russia with China and consequent improvement of economic situation in Russia, serious militarization and farther fascification of Russia. Only if Russia would feel that it can allow _complete_ isolation from the West (including complete cessation of the West purchasing any oil and gas from Russia), any attack on Baltics is possible.

My described situation is only possible if the world situation would change in this way. There is pretty much zero chance of Russia attacking Baltics at all without this change.

mcreadyblue: I guess it's war then, too bad we are bound by unchangeable treaties.

No treaty is unchangeable... If those wanting to change it are powerful enough.

Remember Alberto Gonzales? Who would have thought that supposedly unchangeable laws about torture are actually easily changed guidelines...

And those international treaties which define a person either an enemy combatant, for whom there is a set of rules, or a criminal for whom there is another? What do you know, apparently, if you check under the sofa of international treaties, you can find the category of illegal combatants, for whom there are no rules, who may, you know. Just disappear, forever, and never see their relatives and friends again; who would not be judged of any crimes and punished for anything they've done, who would not be able to defend themselves against any accusation, who would just... spend the rest of their lives in a prison on an island. Until they'll die from old age. Li ...


I'm now reading all your posts in Scar's voice.
 
2014-04-10 06:59:54 PM  

mcreadyblue: I guess it's war then, too bad we are bound by unchangeable treaties.

It's WWI all over again.


You really should know what you're talking about before you make sarcastic quips. Article 5, the protection of NATO member states by the whole from aggression, IS the North Atlantic Treaty. It is basically what the entire organization was founded upon.

It's not "World War I", unless you count Russia as the Germans invading everyone around them.

mcreadyblue: I applaud your bravery in being amongst the first troops to bravely charge into the Russian lines.

You courage will long be remembered.


No one is talking about invading Russia, you hack.

Grahor: Unthinkable, once. And yet entirely reasonable and acceptable, today. Rules change. Something unthinkable becomes entirely acceptable, completely reasonable.


What you're suggesting is nothing less than the dissolution of NATO and outright appeasement of an aggressive power to keep form going to war. Remind me, Neville, how well that's worked out historically? And for an added bonus, remind me how many lives it would have saved had you stood up to that power and outright smacked them down rather than appeasing them?
 
Displayed 50 of 61 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report