10 ms·

American Security guarantees do not come for free. Feeling constrained? then raise an Army and a Navy worth fielding and fighting Russians with out American ass

American Security guarantees do not come for free. Feeling constrained? then raise an Army and a Navy worth fielding and fighting Russians with out American assistance.

the-dude 7y ago
Why would we fight the Russians?
- wffurr 7y ago
  Some people are still stuck in the Cold War.
  - cies 7y ago
    > Some people Some countries. Propaganda is hard to undo. See how people believe capitalism equates 1-on-1 with "free market" and think that communism means they cannot have personal belongings. Lol.
- sremani 7y ago
  Because Russians want to move their borders to Carpathians to secure their borders given their dwindling demographics (since you can protect will lesser numbers). this is not anything to do with Cold war -- it is natural state of survival. One thing East Europeans get and West Europeans are clueless is the Russian Expansionism. The immediate prescription of half-wits is "Cold War". I did not make the North European Plains flat.. do not blame me.
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    Fun facts: - Europe destroyed the USSR without war. - Putin gets more resistance protests in Russia because of common sanctions - Gazprom can't sell with profit within Russia, they need Europe - Russia invests a lot of percentage of their GDP on military. But it's still nothing compared to Europe ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+military+spend https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+milit... ). Remember, Europe isn't even spending 2% - Without Ukraine, Russia can't even use their naval fleet. That's why they are being aggressive. The sanctions of being aggressive are hurting them, but cutting off oil to Europe would hurt them a lot more. - Europe has never been so close to Moscow. They are more scared than you imagine - Russia has way more borders to defend than any other country. That's why they are willing to get run over by China. Their relationship will fail sooner or later. China doesn't invest in Russia despite longtime promises. Their relationship will hold untill Putin realizes there is not much to gain or till China doesn't need them anymore. Russia needs China more ( because of borders ) than the other way around. China also wants more security at it's borders, but it's less of a requirement. - Russia's and Turkeys relationship is also not that stable. It was because of one man that they talked again, by the use of a special Turkish expression that said: sorry, but not that sorry. Their relationship could hold untill one of both actually tries to improve relations with Europe, not happening soon though. If Europe would want to hurt Russia, they only need to heavily subsidize renewable resources, that would hurt max. 5% of Russia's GDP. No war required and don't bite the hand that feeds you ;)
    - baybal2 7y ago
      Man... what your economic policy will do to 30k units or armour, and 50k units in reserve? Russia is still 100% capable to just put reservists into t55s and send them in the general direction of Europe. The only two real option to stall them for Nato will be to redeploy US forces to Europe or use French nukes.
      - NicoJuicy 7y ago
        > Man... what your economic policy will do to 30k units or armour, and 50k units in reserve? Make 144,5 million Russians even more unhappy? https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-big-shift-russians-take-to-the-streets-over-everyday-complaints-11577203354 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-big-shift-russians-take-to... - dated: December 2019. What will the army / Putin do against much higher protests, if they continue to threat and receive more economic sanctions? This is why the USSR, at it's peak in 1980 x 5 of current Russia, fell without a war. What good has Russia's gigantic military done? I only see failures. It seems that history hasn't been a good teacher. So, please learn some history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Effects_on_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Effects_on_... PS. Always welcome to adjust my opinion with facts.
        baybal2 7y ago
        > Make 144,5 million Russians even more unhappy? Do they care when they talk of making populace "eat grass?" And I think they wouldn't even mind doing that and losing for as long as they "mess up your lawn" From tiny pieces of what gets leaked, Putin hoped for nothing less than complete victory in both Georgia and Ukraine, and in both times it demonstrated that his generals were comically incompetent, causing lots of discontent in the military. Nevertheless, I think he still came out quite happy with just scaring the West away from those two countries, and messing up any prospect for a brighter future for them.
        NicoJuicy 7y ago
        Perhaps your vision is too black and white. Russia still receives sanctions ( that hurts their economy) and Crimea has always been mostly Russians, with over 65% Russians. None of them were actually part of the EU. Although i would have wished Ukraine would have been better off without Russia ( and more democracy). It's not that easy to make an objective opinion, Russia had way more to loose than any of us + 65% Russians in the country would have made it possible to make a democratic decision ( in theory) Georgia, i'm not aware of that actually. It's seems to me that both were caused by oil for Russia. My statement about subsidizing renewable energy against Russia has only been proven right.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    > Because Russians want to move their borders to Carpathians Russians will move their border as far as you allow them to. I know their mentality, for I am one, and I grew up in a town full of army and fleet people. I saw many types like that, before I got out of the country. Those will keep bully you more and more to see where you set the line, and punch them back. In their calculus, being punched back is not bad at all, if before that they were able to punch you "for free"
    - sykick 7y ago
      It seems to me that Russia's desire for the Crimea is rational and understandable. It was an accident of history that the Ukraine ended up with Crimea after the split of the Soviet Union. I understand that my belief on this might not be rooted in reality. What is your view of Russia's Crimean desires?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - baybal2 7y ago
        > Russia's Crimean desires? Russia's Crimean desire is Russia's desire for land and spoils of war. Nothing more nothing less. Crimea just happened to be there with some historical justification with which they came months into the conflict. Russia was plainly unable to advance any much further beyond the line where Ukrainians were scared enough to fight them seriously. Russophone sentiment? No, nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be occupying Ukrainian majority regions, or allow ethnic Russians to be made hate crime victims in their own backyard (Armenia, Kazakhstan to some extend, and ethnic autonomies in Russia itself) Their desire for Crimea is not much different from their desire from getting a cut of land on the Rheine, or french Riviera, or even your capitol hill if you allow them to.
        sykick 7y ago
        Thank you for your perspective. I don't know much about that region of the world and used to view Ukrainian and Russian as basically the same people until I had a Ukranian professor in graduate school.
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Why would we fight the Russians? Ask the Ukrainians.
cies 7y ago
Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. And could also hold a rule not to invade other countries (yes looking at you US). https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-pitched-the-idea-joining-nato-1954-18737 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-pitch...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- CharlesColeman 7y ago
  > Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. It seems like accepting Soviet/Russian proposal would have had the effect of 1) limiting the criticism of Soviet human rights abuses and 2) weakening the ability of democratic western countries to resist aggression by the authoritarian Soviets. I think it was the right call for NATO to reject this proposal. If it had been accepted, maybe we'd still have the Soviet Union around in 2020. From your link: > Molotov wrote. “The USSR joining the North Atlantic Pact simultaneously with the conclusion of a General European Agreement on Collective Security in Europe would also undermine plans for the creation of the European Defense Community and the remilitarization of West Germany.” > But Molotov did foresee problems in the event the Soviet Union became a NATO member. NATO would likely insist on democratic institutions while the Soviet Union considered the Westphalian concept of sovereignty sacrosanct. “If the question of the USSR joining it became a practical proposition, it would be necessary to raise the issue of all participants in the agreement undertaking a commitment (in the form of a joint declaration, for example) on the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of states and respect for the principles of state independence and sovereignty,” Molotov wrote.
- Zigurd 7y ago
  To "not repeatedly exclude the Russians" is premature. The Russians have invaded a European ally of the US. There is a path to Russia becoming a welcomed part of Europe and that path leads out of Ukraine.
  - cies 7y ago
NicoJuicy 7y ago
Europe easily outspends Russia in military investments. 287$ billion for Europe, 70$ for Russia in 2015 ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+military+spend https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+milit... ) So, I don't know where your opinion comes from. But I think you could be better informed ;) Ps. I do think we should buy less US and spend more European. Eg. The F-35 is a joke currently, considering the costs.
- rb808 7y ago
  I'm very sympathetic to the European view, but it was pretty disappointing to see Europeans forces do very little in Yugoslavian civil wars, Libya, Ukraine.
  - NicoJuicy 7y ago
    Europe invests in army, but it isn't a global military peace-keeper. It was/is ? actually a role that America tries to play for a long time. You already mention 3 countries. You are forgetting Georgia and a lot of other countries. Europe is a democracy and tries to influence with trade, not war. We do not force western opinions that much as America does. PS. I'm aware of Europe's history, but we live in the present. The EU is still young ( 1999 was the Euro ) and people seem to forget this all the time. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who reads this will be older.
- sykick 7y ago
  Collectively Europe outspends Russia in military investments. However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading. I suggest that military spending is not an accurate enough indicator of relative strength. Defense spending alone is meaningless if there is not an accompanying ability/willingness to project power. Russia is certainly not shy about projecting it's power and European countries have been when it comes to Russia. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia certainly don't feel their security would be guaranteed in the absence of the United States being in NATO. Thanks to a successful Russian campaign to undermine confidence in the United States increasingly U.S. security guarantees are becoming less reliable. The shift to a multi-polar world has begun. Will European governments rise to the challenge?

American Security guarantees do not come for free. Feeling constrained? then raise an Army and a Navy worth fielding and fighting Russians with out American assistance.

the-dude 7y ago

Why would we fight the Russians?

wffurr 7y ago
Some people are still stuck in the Cold War.
- cies 7y ago
  > Some people Some countries. Propaganda is hard to undo. See how people believe capitalism equates 1-on-1 with "free market" and think that communism means they cannot have personal belongings. Lol.
sremani 7y ago
Because Russians want to move their borders to Carpathians to secure their borders given their dwindling demographics (since you can protect will lesser numbers). this is not anything to do with Cold war -- it is natural state of survival. One thing East Europeans get and West Europeans are clueless is the Russian Expansionism. The immediate prescription of half-wits is "Cold War". I did not make the North European Plains flat.. do not blame me.
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  Fun facts: - Europe destroyed the USSR without war. - Putin gets more resistance protests in Russia because of common sanctions - Gazprom can't sell with profit within Russia, they need Europe - Russia invests a lot of percentage of their GDP on military. But it's still nothing compared to Europe ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+military+spend https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+milit... ). Remember, Europe isn't even spending 2% - Without Ukraine, Russia can't even use their naval fleet. That's why they are being aggressive. The sanctions of being aggressive are hurting them, but cutting off oil to Europe would hurt them a lot more. - Europe has never been so close to Moscow. They are more scared than you imagine - Russia has way more borders to defend than any other country. That's why they are willing to get run over by China. Their relationship will fail sooner or later. China doesn't invest in Russia despite longtime promises. Their relationship will hold untill Putin realizes there is not much to gain or till China doesn't need them anymore. Russia needs China more ( because of borders ) than the other way around. China also wants more security at it's borders, but it's less of a requirement. - Russia's and Turkeys relationship is also not that stable. It was because of one man that they talked again, by the use of a special Turkish expression that said: sorry, but not that sorry. Their relationship could hold untill one of both actually tries to improve relations with Europe, not happening soon though. If Europe would want to hurt Russia, they only need to heavily subsidize renewable resources, that would hurt max. 5% of Russia's GDP. No war required and don't bite the hand that feeds you ;)
  - baybal2 7y ago
    Man... what your economic policy will do to 30k units or armour, and 50k units in reserve? Russia is still 100% capable to just put reservists into t55s and send them in the general direction of Europe. The only two real option to stall them for Nato will be to redeploy US forces to Europe or use French nukes.
    - NicoJuicy 7y ago
      > Man... what your economic policy will do to 30k units or armour, and 50k units in reserve? Make 144,5 million Russians even more unhappy? https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-big-shift-russians-take-to-the-streets-over-everyday-complaints-11577203354 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-a-big-shift-russians-take-to... - dated: December 2019. What will the army / Putin do against much higher protests, if they continue to threat and receive more economic sanctions? This is why the USSR, at it's peak in 1980 x 5 of current Russia, fell without a war. What good has Russia's gigantic military done? I only see failures. It seems that history hasn't been a good teacher. So, please learn some history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Effects_on_Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War#Effects_on_... PS. Always welcome to adjust my opinion with facts.
      - baybal2 7y ago
        > Make 144,5 million Russians even more unhappy? Do they care when they talk of making populace "eat grass?" And I think they wouldn't even mind doing that and losing for as long as they "mess up your lawn" From tiny pieces of what gets leaked, Putin hoped for nothing less than complete victory in both Georgia and Ukraine, and in both times it demonstrated that his generals were comically incompetent, causing lots of discontent in the military. Nevertheless, I think he still came out quite happy with just scaring the West away from those two countries, and messing up any prospect for a brighter future for them.
        NicoJuicy 7y ago
        Perhaps your vision is too black and white. Russia still receives sanctions ( that hurts their economy) and Crimea has always been mostly Russians, with over 65% Russians. None of them were actually part of the EU. Although i would have wished Ukraine would have been better off without Russia ( and more democracy). It's not that easy to make an objective opinion, Russia had way more to loose than any of us + 65% Russians in the country would have made it possible to make a democratic decision ( in theory) Georgia, i'm not aware of that actually. It's seems to me that both were caused by oil for Russia. My statement about subsidizing renewable energy against Russia has only been proven right.
- baybal2 7y ago
  > Because Russians want to move their borders to Carpathians Russians will move their border as far as you allow them to. I know their mentality, for I am one, and I grew up in a town full of army and fleet people. I saw many types like that, before I got out of the country. Those will keep bully you more and more to see where you set the line, and punch them back. In their calculus, being punched back is not bad at all, if before that they were able to punch you "for free"
  - sykick 7y ago
    It seems to me that Russia's desire for the Crimea is rational and understandable. It was an accident of history that the Ukraine ended up with Crimea after the split of the Soviet Union. I understand that my belief on this might not be rooted in reality. What is your view of Russia's Crimean desires?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - baybal2 7y ago
      > Russia's Crimean desires? Russia's Crimean desire is Russia's desire for land and spoils of war. Nothing more nothing less. Crimea just happened to be there with some historical justification with which they came months into the conflict. Russia was plainly unable to advance any much further beyond the line where Ukrainians were scared enough to fight them seriously. Russophone sentiment? No, nonsense, otherwise they wouldn't be occupying Ukrainian majority regions, or allow ethnic Russians to be made hate crime victims in their own backyard (Armenia, Kazakhstan to some extend, and ethnic autonomies in Russia itself) Their desire for Crimea is not much different from their desire from getting a cut of land on the Rheine, or french Riviera, or even your capitol hill if you allow them to.
      - sykick 7y ago
        Thank you for your perspective. I don't know much about that region of the world and used to view Ukrainian and Russian as basically the same people until I had a Ukranian professor in graduate school.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Why would we fight the Russians? Ask the Ukrainians.

cies 7y ago

Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. And could also hold a rule not to invade other countries (yes looking at you US). https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-pitched-the-idea-joining-nato-1954-18737 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/fact-russia-pitch...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> Or create a new NATO that does not repeatedly exclude the Russians[1]. It seems like accepting Soviet/Russian proposal would have had the effect of 1) limiting the criticism of Soviet human rights abuses and 2) weakening the ability of democratic western countries to resist aggression by the authoritarian Soviets. I think it was the right call for NATO to reject this proposal. If it had been accepted, maybe we'd still have the Soviet Union around in 2020. From your link: > Molotov wrote. “The USSR joining the North Atlantic Pact simultaneously with the conclusion of a General European Agreement on Collective Security in Europe would also undermine plans for the creation of the European Defense Community and the remilitarization of West Germany.” > But Molotov did foresee problems in the event the Soviet Union became a NATO member. NATO would likely insist on democratic institutions while the Soviet Union considered the Westphalian concept of sovereignty sacrosanct. “If the question of the USSR joining it became a practical proposition, it would be necessary to raise the issue of all participants in the agreement undertaking a commitment (in the form of a joint declaration, for example) on the inadmissibility of interference in the internal affairs of states and respect for the principles of state independence and sovereignty,” Molotov wrote.
Zigurd 7y ago
To "not repeatedly exclude the Russians" is premature. The Russians have invaded a European ally of the US. There is a path to Russia becoming a welcomed part of Europe and that path leads out of Ukraine.
- cies 7y ago

NicoJuicy 7y ago

Europe easily outspends Russia in military investments. 287$ billion for Europe, 70$ for Russia in 2015 ( russia vs europe military spend: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+military+spend https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=russia+vs+europe+milit... ) So, I don't know where your opinion comes from. But I think you could be better informed ;) Ps. I do think we should buy less US and spend more European. Eg. The F-35 is a joke currently, considering the costs.

rb808 7y ago
I'm very sympathetic to the European view, but it was pretty disappointing to see Europeans forces do very little in Yugoslavian civil wars, Libya, Ukraine.
- NicoJuicy 7y ago
  Europe invests in army, but it isn't a global military peace-keeper. It was/is ? actually a role that America tries to play for a long time. You already mention 3 countries. You are forgetting Georgia and a lot of other countries. Europe is a democracy and tries to influence with trade, not war. We do not force western opinions that much as America does. PS. I'm aware of Europe's history, but we live in the present. The EU is still young ( 1999 was the Euro ) and people seem to forget this all the time. I'm pretty sure that almost everyone who reads this will be older.
sykick 7y ago
Collectively Europe outspends Russia in military investments. However, there is quite a bit of duplication in the individual European armies that make a straight comparison misleading. I suggest that military spending is not an accurate enough indicator of relative strength. Defense spending alone is meaningless if there is not an accompanying ability/willingness to project power. Russia is certainly not shy about projecting it's power and European countries have been when it comes to Russia. Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia certainly don't feel their security would be guaranteed in the absence of the United States being in NATO. Thanks to a successful Russian campaign to undermine confidence in the United States increasingly U.S. security guarantees are becoming less reliable. The shift to a multi-polar world has begun. Will European governments rise to the challenge?