NATO considering thousands of troops near Russia’s border

[Kellhound]

"We will use aggression to halt aggression!" NATO is a fucking joke.

Defense is not aggressive when no action is taken against the opposition.

[Oktoberfest]

We need to pull out of or reduce NATO.

We also need to get rid of the fucking UN for sure. Fuck the UN

[Skroe]

We need to pull out of or reduce NATO.

We also need to get rid of the fucking UN for sure. Fuck the UN

No. And don't ask again.

[Kellhound]

How is this aggression?


Makes sense... Still feels like an unnecessary waste of resources to me. Perhaps it would be better to just locate a few squads there and keep the rest nearby, which can be summoned quickly when needed?

Every year (except 1989) from 1969 until 1993 NATO conducted REFORGER exercises. It was expensive, but it not only showed NATO that the US was committed to defending Europe, it was the blue print for the REturn of FORces to GERmany should WWIII break out. The same holds true today in Eastern Europe.

- - - Updated - - -

We need to pull out of or reduce NATO.

We also need to get rid of the fucking UN for sure. Fuck the UN

Both of those are VERY bad ideas.

[Skroe]

When the war USA vs China begin, i have no doubts - Russia will join China. Frankly I'll be very happy, when the "chosen one" nation will be completely erased.
"Carthago delenda est, Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse" (c)

More likely Russia would keep its head down, or even covertly help the US because it would stand to profit massively from the break up of China after the squash job the US would hand out.

No one in the world loses more from a there being a strong China than Russia. No one in the world gains more from the end of it, than Russia. Eurasia is too small for two would-be hegemons.

[Oktoberfest]

No. And don't ask again.

No what?

Yes we need to cut our NATO commitment down. Also fuck being the worlds policeman and sending our money out of country to defend other countries. I dont mind a few airbases or something but its fucking nuts now. We will have more American troops in Europe than Europe has itself. Thats fucking stupid.

and

Fuck the UN. Pull out and kick it out of the country.

[Skroe]

http://statisticstimes.com/economy/c...ed-gdp-ppp.php




am i reading something wrong here?

We've only gone over in various threads why PPP is a pretty garbage statistic that's fallen out of favor, but let's do it once again.

PPP has an immense number of problems. It was a statistic that was in vogue like, 8 years ago but has largely fallen out of favor again due to it's intrinsic problems.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/in...l-trade/26060/

Here's one huge one:

3. The PPP theory is an empty truism:

It states that changes in foreign exchange rate must reflect changes in price levels of the countries. But, goods traded internally only have no direct bearing on the exchange value of the currency and their prices may be fluctuating without affecting the exchange rate. “Confined to internationally traded commodities, the purchasing power parity theory becomes an empty truism,” says Keynes.

China's economy is smaller than the US in nominal terms.
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD


But PPP isn't useful a metric for the sake of comparison in this sense sense. Why?

the reports trumpeting that China is to overtake the US as top economic power are misleading because comparing countries’ GDPs using PPP rates, rather than actual exchange rates, is the right thing to do if you want to measure people’s living standards. But it is the wrong thing to do if you are looking at national income in order to measure the country’s weight in the global economy. When we talk about size or power it’s how much the Yuan can buy on world markets that is of interest, not how many haircuts or other local goods it can buy back home. Where the issue is total economic heft, you want to use GDP evaluated at current exchange rates.

More on this:
http://www.bruegel.org/nc/blog/detai...united-states/



There is no reason why GDP, or GDP (PPP) should be the definitive metric. Ultimately, they're indicators whose use and importance emerged from convention (indeed, GDP replaced GNP and several other metrics). THe usage of the metric only goes back to the 1930s. It's rather weird, given the development in economics and statistics over the last 85 years, we use it still.

Here's a whole website by the World Economic Forum about this:
https://www.weforum.org/focus/beyond-gdp

The emerging favorite GDP replacement is GDI, Gross Domestic Income.

http://www.businessinsider.com/gross...product-2015-5

Good summary there, way too long to post.

But really, watching the GDP as an indicator of anything, especially "whose on top" is like evaluating the economy based on where the Dow Jones Industrial Average is. That is to say, it doesn't say anything.

[Kellhound]

No what?

Yes we need to cut our NATO commitment down. Also fuck being the worlds policeman and sending our money out of country to defend other countries. I dont mind a few airbases or something but its fucking nuts now. We will have more American troops in Europe than Europe has itself. Thats fucking stupid.

and

Fuck the UN. Pull out and kick it out of the country.

Our NATO commitment already is way down. Europe has ~2 million members of its various armed forces, so no, we do NOT have more troops in Europe than Europe does.

Why pull out of the UN when we have Veto power?

[Skroe]

No what?

Yes we need to cut our NATO commitment down. Also fuck being the worlds policeman and sending our money out of country to defend other countries. I dont mind a few airbases or something but its fucking nuts now. We will have more American troops in Europe than Europe has itself. Thats fucking stupid.

We have 60,000 Troops in Europe. Out of 1.4 million. The British Army alone has 90,000 troops. The Germany miltary has 185,000 troops. See? you can't even get that right. Like what the fuck went through your head Oktoberfest, when you were posting that. Were you doubly, triply sure, your claim was right? You believed something and couldn't be fucked to google something so basic? I mean just use common sense. There are 26 European countries in NATO. The EU has a population of 509 million. Of course there are going to be a couple of million of European troops based on basic proportionality of countries populations. 26 countries, each with, on average, 30,000-300,000 man armed forces, adds up very quick.

How many US troops did you think were in Europe? The most we've ever had was 205,000, during the late 1980s and early 1990s.. But the Military was a million people larger.

Furthermore your foreign policy would vacate the strategic advantages the US. Who says anything about World Police? But who is safer? The man alone or the man with surrounded by friends. The US "world police" as you call it, surrounds us with friends, all among the richest, most technologically advanced countries in the world. That is a GIFT.

Oh and one more thing... the world's second largest defense spender? Europe. $300 billion per year. Second only to the US. More than Russia and China.

In every way, you are wrong.

Fuck the UN. Pull out and kick it out of the country.

I'm going to make this very simple with an analogy you understand. Me, everybody you don't like, everybody who doesn't like you, a few of your friends and a bunch of people who don't care, are going to have a meeting about you. What we decide will be binding to you. Disagree? Too bad. You're one person and we're many. You _will_ comply. Oh and by the way, you won't be allowed in the room when the meeting is going on.

See why the UN is important? It gets us in that room, with a veto, to protect ourselves.

Let me give you a bit of history. The USSR/Russia boycotted the UN exactly once. Once. During the lead up to the Korean War, it walked out. And for it's trouble, the everyone else in the room, in Russia's absence, decided to make the Korean War UN authorized, and Russia wasn't there to say no.

THe Soviet Union never boycotted the UN ever again.

This is why your position is stupid. Our involvement in it doesn't mean that we suddenly aren't subject to the agreements passed under it because EVERYBODY ELSE
certainly is and will continue to be so.

[ringpriest]

Fuck the UN. Pull out and kick it out of the country.

The UN has been a significant component of the post-WWII international system, which has been marked by a notable absence of hot wars between Great Powers - for that alone, it's worth it.

[Skroe]

I think you're spinning this too hard.

I don't spin.

Ukraine, as it is right now, is a strategic draw favoring Russia - Putin took what Russia considers an unacceptable major strategic loss (NATO in Ukraine, plus Ukraine aligned with EU) and turned it into a wrecked Ukraine that will never join NATO (thanks to the frozen conflict in Donbass), and Crimea (and the Black Sea resource rights) back in Russian hands.

I think you're looking at this way wrong. What did Putin gain in Ukraine? Donbass, which will require a substantial military commitment for years to come, and Crimea, which has long been an economic black hole. And he secured Crimean ports, which by the way, are worthless, on account of being a quick flight from neighboring Romania. There is no real A2/AD with Crimea as it's nexus.

What did it cost Russia? Well keep in mind, the US was on its way out the door from Europe in 2014. It cost it European cooperation. Sanctions are in place, have been in place for two years and Obama just won commitment from Europe to keep them in place longer last week. It cost him access to European defense technology. It cost him having to deal with NATO making it's biggest move ever Eastward. Oh and on top of that, in exchange for Donbass and Crimea, he loses the Ukraine he had six years ago, and the one that's been at the center of the Russian defense industrial complex for decades.

As for Ukraine never joining NATO... not soon. But one day. Probably 20-25 years. The fact that the US has been pressing to bring in Georgia shows that the "frozen conflicts" are in no way shape or form permanent impediments to membership.

Russia looks like the clear loser on Ukraine and I can't see how you can think otherwise. There i nothing on this earth comparable to the gains Russia's strategic security would have achieved that would equal the de facto strategic withdrawl from Europe the Obama Administration was winding up just as Russia invaded Ukraine. Nothing. By trading that in for Crimea and Donbass, Putin traded away a strategic victory handed to him by a once-in-a-half-century President for two rump territories it would have have defacto control of anyway.

Russia is drawing its forces in Syria down, while the US is still ramping up our involvement. Putin has used the Syrian crisis to increase Russia's prestige on the non-NATO-aligned world stage several times over (weapons demo, perceived effective military campaign, negotiating lead). Syria (and Assad) were toast without Russian assistance, now, in addition to the above, Putin has the naval base in Tarsus and a lot of dead (or occupied) Islamic terrorists who would otherwise have been making trouble on Russia's borders - again, Putin turned a total loss into a moderate win; just because its not a complete win doesn't mean it should be discounted. (He's also blocked gas pipelines from the Gulf into Europe.) And despite Russia's economic suffering (caused as much if not more by the oil price crash than sanctions), Putin is stupidly popular in Russia.

The US adding 250 troops to Iraq and special forces to Turkey here and htere is hardly "ramping up". The total cost of the ISIS War, for both iraq and Syria, is about $6 billion per year. Pocket change.

I think you overstate how important "Russian prestige" is. What did it tangibly get Russia? Nobody's buying it's wares. No new alliances have been struck up. More than anything Russia has profited from the Obama Administration's dysfuctional relationship with Israel and Saudi Arabia, and sell-out reputation with Egypt. It wouldn't take a strategic genius to capitalize on those bad policies.

And again, I mean, I'll just point at a map.



Five years ago the Syrian government controlled the entirety of Syria. Today, Russia's ally controls just the green areas. How is this a "moderate win". It's moving the goal post. He lost a stable ally and gained a long term expensive project. Were the US in Russia's position, you'd be calling that a catastrophe. "Stopping the bleeding" as Russia did, when Syria has already had it's arms and legs cut off, in no universe will ever constitute a "moderate win".

I seem to recall not that long ago you were celebrating the US exit from the Middle East and Europe, as part of the Pacific pivot, while promoting how bad it was for Russia to get 'stuck' in Syria; now, the US is increasing attention (and resources) on the Middle East and Russia, while the strategically important western Pacific potentially suffers.

I still think that, but to be clear: my position was only that with the Middle East. However I also said Syrian and middle Eastern stuff is fine so long as it is a light foot print and cheap, which is exactly what it the ISIS war has been. Europe... it is less than desirable any resources go to Europe rather than Asia-Pacific, but better Europe than the middle East, and European defense certainly is worth it.

The most nationally prominent security related stories in the past year have been in Syria/Iraq with ISIS. But the most important ones have been in Asia Pacific and Europe, as expected. Opening bases. Technology sharing. New deployments. That sort of things. It's gone exactly as I have advocated, regardless of the ISIS campaign.

While Putin has many problems as a leader (among others he's grossly failing to improve Russia internally, which will bite it in the end, even if Putin is dead by then), but he's consistently turned losing hands into partial wins, which is more than the US has been able to do for quite some time.

These "partial wins" your crediting him would be massive set backs if any other country had experienced them. I don't buy that at all.

Again, there is no universe where Russia's relations with Europe in 2016 are "worth it" considering with Russia has gained, compared to what they were in 2005 or 2010. It's crazy. Sure some Europeans want to lift sanctions and make money. There's always that. But going back to the status quo ante? Never happening. Those NATO forces going to Eastern Europe? They're staying, they're never going to leave... not for years to come. That's Putin's legacy. That directly undermines Russian security. And you call THIS a partial win? I'd hate to see what a defeat looks like.

I think that its extremely important to see one's potential adversaries clearly - if (heavens forbid) the balloon does go up over the Baltics, a US government, military, and public that sees Russia as a capable adversary will be prepared and able to deal with degrees of Russian success; conversely, if America collectively assumes an incompetent, incapable Russia (as you seem to portray), then any Russian success or American failure is likely to be perceived in the worst possible terms, leading to damage to morale and decision-making capabilities.

That's fair, I wouldn't over rate the Russians either. Russians are not incompetent or incapable. But there is truly epic amounts of bullshit that just spews from that country. Between it's showpiece military pieces, to it's showpiece military campaigns (that Syrian bombing campaign was a joke from top to bottom).

I've always likened it like this: America's overwhelming global military, economic and political supremacy just makes some people deeply uncomfortable for whatever reason, so for years people have angled to create 12 foot tall alternatives to something the US does. How many times in your life, have you heard the MiG-29 is the greatest fighter in the world (ironic because the Su-27 could eat it for lunch)? How many times in your life have you heard a Russian talk about some new Russian wonder weapon like the Bulava or the S300/400? How many times have you heard some guy pretend the SCO was going to becoming the dominant military power in Eurasia. And now there is this nonsense with Russia and EW... never mind the fact that technology and signals are kind of America's thing.

Russia is a country with a $1.4 trillion GDP, an economy in decline, a population in decline, and a military that despite YEARS of investment and some modernization, is still hopelessly behind. It's political leadership is sclerotic, and it's security apparatus has become deeply politicized. You want to know why I view Russia as I do? Because I can read it's metrics, and it's metrics have the stench of death on them. Countries doing well, don't lose a quarter of their GDP in four years.

Any US President's whose had a reign of failure comparable to Putin would have seen rioting in the streets.

Or, to put it another way, which of the following lines of thought do you want SACEUR following:

"The Russians are strategically limited, but also aggressive and clever - we need to be on our guard, ready for non-conventional as well as conventional engagement, and have multiple contingencies, operations plans, and fallbacks ready and continually updated, so that we can make sure we're ready, no matter what they try."

Or, "The Russians are incompetent clowns who always lose - drop a couple battalions in the Baltics and we can stop worrying, it's impossible for the Russians to pull anything off. Now, back to politics, hobbies, and planning my post-SACEUR career."

The former of course. But let's not pretend they're anything more than a third world country that sometimes overachieves.

[Deleted]

I'm going to make this very simple with an analogy you understand. Me, everybody you don't like, everybody who doesn't like you, a few of your friends and a bunch of people who don't care, are going to have a meeting about you. What we decide will be binding to you. Disagree? Too bad. You're one person and we're many. You _will_ comply. Oh and by the way, you won't be allowed in the room when the meeting is going on.

Except for North Korea. Kim Jong-un couldn't care less about what the UN decides, and he certainly does NOT comply.

[Skroe]

Except for North Korea. Kim Jong-un couldn't care less about what the UN decides, and he certainly does NOT comply.

And hows' that worked out for him? Sanctioned to hell. Millions dead from starvation

(a little out of date but you get the picture)




But more to the point, the entire premise is ridiculous. If there is a decision making room, out of general principle, you want to be in it.

[Deleted]

Any US President's whose had a reign of failure comparable to Putin would have seen rioting in the streets.

We will see about that soon enough I guess, since Trump is on his way to become the next one, lol.

[Skroe]

We will see about that soon enough I guess, since Trump is on his way to become the next one, lol.

No. He isn't.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-donald-trump/

Politico reported today on a Florida poll conducted for a business group in the state that shows Hillary Clinton beating Donald Trump by 13 points and Ted Cruz by nine.

Why is that important? Because if Clinton wins Florida and carries the 19 states (plus D.C.) that have voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in each of the last six elections, she will be the 45th president. It's that simple.

Here's what that map would look like:



And here's the underlying math. If Clinton wins the 19 states (and D.C.) that every Democratic nominee has won from 1992 to 2012, she has 242 electoral votes. Add Florida's 29 and you get 271. Game over.

The Republican map — whether with Trump, Cruz or the ideal Republican nominee (Paul Ryan?) as the standard-bearer — is decidedly less friendly. There are 13 states that have gone for the GOP presidential nominee in each of the last six elections. But they only total 102 electorate votes. That means the eventual nominee has to find, at least, 168 more electoral votes to get to 270. Which is a hell of a lot harder than finding 28 electoral votes.



Many Republicans — particularly in Washington — are already preparing to blame a loss this fall, which many of them view as inevitable, on the divisiveness of Trump. That's not entirely fair to Trump, though.

While his dismal numbers among women and Hispanics, to name two groups, don't help matters and could — in a worst-case scenario for Republicans — put states such as Arizona and even Utah in play for Democrats, the map problems that face the GOP have very, very little to do with Trump or even Cruz.

Instead they are, largely, demographic problems centered on the GOP's inability to win any large swath of nonwhite voters. New Mexico, a state in which almost half the population is Latino, is the ur-example here. In 2004, George W. Bush won the Land of Enchantment in his bid for a second term. (His margin over John Kerry was 588 votes.) Eight years later, Barack Obama won the state by 10 points over Mitt Romney; neither side targeted it in any meaningful way.

What has become increasingly clear is that any state with a large or growing nonwhite population has become more and more difficult for Republicans to win. Virginia and North Carolina, long Republican strongholds, have moved closer and closer to Democrats of late. (Obama won both states in 2008 and carried Virginia in 2012.)

At the same time as these states have grown friendlier to Democrats, there are very few states that are growing increasingly Republican. Wisconsin and Minnesota are two, but neither is moving rapidly in Republicans' favor just yet.

What you are left with then is an electoral map in which the Democratic nominee begins at a significant advantage over the Republican one. (It is the obverse of the massive Republican electoral college edge of the 1980s.) And that edge is totally distinct from any individual candidate and his/her strengths or weaknesses. Yes, Trump as the nominee is more problematic than Ryan as the nominee, but the idea that Ryan would start the general election with a coin-flip chance of being elected president is just wrong.

The Republican map problem goes deeper than Trump — or any one candidate. Blaming Trump for a loss this November not only misses the point but could ensure that Republicans are doomed to repeat history in 2020.

[Berengil]

We have 60,000 Troops in Europe. Out of 1.4 million. The British Army alone has 90,000 troops. The Germany miltary has 185,000 troops. See? you can't even get that right. Like what the fuck went through your head Oktoberfest, when you were posting that. Were you doubly, triply sure, your claim was right? You believed something and couldn't be fucked to google something so basic? I mean just use common sense. There are 26 European countries in NATO. The EU has a population of 509 million. Of course there are going to be a couple of million of European troops based on basic proportionality of countries populations. 26 countries, each with, on average, 30,000-300,000 man armed forces, adds up very quick.

How many US troops did you think were in Europe? The most we've ever had was 205,000, during the late 1980s and early 1990s.. But the Military was a million people larger.

Furthermore your foreign policy would vacate the strategic advantages the US. Who says anything about World Police? But who is safer? The man alone or the man with surrounded by friends. The US "world police" as you call it, surrounds us with friends, all among the richest, most technologically advanced countries in the world. That is a GIFT.

Oh and one more thing... the world's second largest defense spender? Europe. $300 billion per year. Second only to the US. More than Russia and China.

In every way, you are wrong.


I'm going to make this very simple with an analogy you understand. Me, everybody you don't like, everybody who doesn't like you, a few of your friends and a bunch of people who don't care, are going to have a meeting about you. What we decide will be binding to you. Disagree? Too bad. You're one person and we're many. You _will_ comply. Oh and by the way, you won't be allowed in the room when the meeting is going on.

See why the UN is important? It gets us in that room, with a veto, to protect ourselves.

Let me give you a bit of history. The USSR/Russia boycotted the UN exactly once. Once. During the lead up to the Korean War, it walked out. And for it's trouble, the everyone else in the room, in Russia's absence, decided to make the Korean War UN authorized, and Russia wasn't there to say no.

THe Soviet Union never boycotted the UN ever again.

This is why your position is stupid. Our involvement in it doesn't mean that we suddenly aren't subject to the agreements passed under it because EVERYBODY ELSE
certainly is and will continue to be so.

I'm going to have to somewhat disagree, Skroe. if the US wasn't in the UN anymore, sure they could pass all kinds of rubbish against us. And the US would shrug it off and go " so what? come do something about it."

Our veto " to protect ourselves" is the fact that we have enough of a nuclear arsenal to destroy the world by ourselves. This has not gone unnoticed.

[Crispin]

Sanctions does not require anyone to "come and do something about it".