4 ms·

Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against russian armor. Now we see its effectivenes. I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics are don

by rvba 4y ago

Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against russian armor. Now we see its effectivenes. I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics are done by US/NATO generals who tell the Ukrainian army what to do - since NATO has all its spy satelites/systems that track phones/various classified stuff pointed on the area. And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets..

jimmydorry 4y ago
Not to support Trump here, but taken the other way, look at how much value and effectiveness America is bringing to the NATO table. And the cost of having access to that power was a mere 2% of GDP (something that many EU countries that were incredibly reluctant to meet are now increasing frantically to make up for lost time).
- pas 4y ago
  it was a perfectly valid argument (and Trump made it into an idiotic talking point in his typical dumbfuck aggressive tantrum style) the important aspect to keep in mind with other NATO members slacking on their own defense is that it directly increases US influence over them. basically the US and those other members semi-knowingly traded dependence and a to a certain degree subservience for protection.
  - jimmydorry 4y ago
    I don't see how it directly increases US influence over them? America is compelled to defend those NATO members, no matter how rag-tag or inadequate those NATO members' forces are. America doesn't have the option of saying "no", and they also cop all of the public backlash as these countries get to stir up anti-American sentiments and make life hard for American forces that are rotated through these countries for training.
    - pas 4y ago
      defending someone is not a binary thing. the amount of effort, the degree of severity, the number of troops mobilized, the whole question of use of nukes (tactical or strategic) and there are real problems around bases (~18-20 year olds on leave are going to do what they are usually do anyway) and the last few decades of US interventionism is not exactly a success story. it was not hard to stir up "anti-imperialist" sentiment
OrvalWintermute 4y ago
> Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against russian armor. Now we see its effectivenes. To go along with this, when Americans train, we mainly practice for peer-combatants, against Russian armor. That means a whole bunch of light infantry, mechanized infantry, combat engineers, calvary and armor, as well as all of our air assets, know how to make it really dangerous for armor. Aka a shooting gallery. > I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics are done by US/NATO generals who tell the Ukrainian army what to do - since NATO has all its spy satelites/systems that track phones/various classified stuff pointed on the area. Perhaps at the macro level there is some advice going on, info about positions and definitely tooling. However, when I've seen videos of Russian armor getting hit by infantry, in most cases it was merely columns driving on a road with no support, and some anti-armor missiles hitting them on their flanks. Armor emerging from a treeline in an open area perfect for a long range missile shot from a TOW, no support anywhere. Basically, newb mistakes. In all the videos I have seen, and have watched lots, I have yet to see a full "American style" ambush. I think it may be dangerous for this to happen, because if Russia was regularly losing large amounts of tanks, it would make it that much more likely that they'd go Nuclear. Another reason for this may be Russian responses to various things can include using artillery or missiles against > a grid square. > And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets.. That was a negotiating tactic. The only way the euros have managed to have such rich social spending is in part, not keeping their promises about contribution levels. The US cannot afford to pick up the tab for everyone's defense in Europe.
- myko 4y ago
  > That was a negotiating tactic. Afraid not, he was really going to do it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
  - mantas 4y ago
    Fantastic evidence! Meanwhile Trump’s tactic pushed some euro countries to finally increase military spending at least a tiny bit. But most euro militaries are still in a bad shape :(
TMWNN 4y ago
>And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets.. Speaking of Russian assets, there are still people that say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years! There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,[1] than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes. Bonus: Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong? [1] Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby

by rvba 4y ago

jimmydorry 4y ago

Not to support Trump here, but taken the other way, look at how much value and effectiveness America is bringing to the NATO table. And the cost of having access to that power was a mere 2% of GDP (something that many EU countries that were incredibly reluctant to meet are now increasing frantically to make up for lost time).

pas 4y ago
it was a perfectly valid argument (and Trump made it into an idiotic talking point in his typical dumbfuck aggressive tantrum style) the important aspect to keep in mind with other NATO members slacking on their own defense is that it directly increases US influence over them. basically the US and those other members semi-knowingly traded dependence and a to a certain degree subservience for protection.
- jimmydorry 4y ago
  I don't see how it directly increases US influence over them? America is compelled to defend those NATO members, no matter how rag-tag or inadequate those NATO members' forces are. America doesn't have the option of saying "no", and they also cop all of the public backlash as these countries get to stir up anti-American sentiments and make life hard for American forces that are rotated through these countries for training.
  - pas 4y ago
    defending someone is not a binary thing. the amount of effort, the degree of severity, the number of troops mobilized, the whole question of use of nukes (tactical or strategic) and there are real problems around bases (~18-20 year olds on leave are going to do what they are usually do anyway) and the last few decades of US interventionism is not exactly a success story. it was not hard to stir up "anti-imperialist" sentiment

OrvalWintermute 4y ago

> Nearly all NATO equipment was made to fight against russian armor. Now we see its effectivenes. To go along with this, when Americans train, we mainly practice for peer-combatants, against Russian armor. That means a whole bunch of light infantry, mechanized infantry, combat engineers, calvary and armor, as well as all of our air assets, know how to make it really dangerous for armor. Aka a shooting gallery. > I think it is quite clear that all strategy and tactics are done by US/NATO generals who tell the Ukrainian army what to do - since NATO has all its spy satelites/systems that track phones/various classified stuff pointed on the area. Perhaps at the macro level there is some advice going on, info about positions and definitely tooling. However, when I've seen videos of Russian armor getting hit by infantry, in most cases it was merely columns driving on a road with no support, and some anti-armor missiles hitting them on their flanks. Armor emerging from a treeline in an open area perfect for a long range missile shot from a TOW, no support anywhere. Basically, newb mistakes. In all the videos I have seen, and have watched lots, I have yet to see a full "American style" ambush. I think it may be dangerous for this to happen, because if Russia was regularly losing large amounts of tanks, it would make it that much more likely that they'd go Nuclear. Another reason for this may be Russian responses to various things can include using artillery or missiles against > a grid square. > And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets.. That was a negotiating tactic. The only way the euros have managed to have such rich social spending is in part, not keeping their promises about contribution levels. The US cannot afford to pick up the tab for everyone's defense in Europe.

myko 4y ago
> That was a negotiating tactic. Afraid not, he was really going to do it: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-nato-south-korea-book-b1883457.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
- mantas 4y ago
  Fantastic evidence! Meanwhile Trump’s tactic pushed some euro countries to finally increase military spending at least a tiny bit. But most euro militaries are still in a bad shape :(

TMWNN 4y ago

>And think that Trump wanted USA to leave NATO. Talk about russian assets.. Speaking of Russian assets, there are still people that say that Merkel was always against German dependence on Russian gas but could not do anything about it. For 16 years! There is more "evidence" that Merkel is a long-term Russian intelligence asset, recruited from her youth in East Germany,[1] than that of Trump being the same. One guess on which claim is incessantly repeated by the bien-pensants of the chattering classes. Bonus: Trump and Stoltenberg argue on camera (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpwkdmwui3k>). Who turned out to be right? Who turned out to completely, totally, 100% wrong? [1] Something else never talked about is how her parents moved from West to East Germany when she was a baby