7 ms·

> If you can convince the Russian commanders of that I would suggest getting in contact with them. They already know it. The European part of Russia is practic

by mopsi 2y ago

> If you can convince the Russian commanders of that I would suggest getting in contact with them. They already know it. The European part of Russia is practically undefended, everything has been committed to Ukraine. When Prigozhin marched on Moscow, there was nothing to oppose him other than a few bucket loaders to dig up roads. Russians are huffing and puffing about NATO because it makes riskier and costlier for them to invade other countries and kill people there. That's the simple truth. Everything else is bullshit and the theories you are spinning do not hold up to any scrutiny. Nothing of this is new. In the 1940s, Russians acted the same way. Demanded neutrality and "military cooperation" and all the other fine euphemism you present us, then invaded their neighbors, set up communist dictatorships and began sending by hundreds of thousands everyone from toddlers to bed-ridden elderly to labor camps in the Siberian wilderness or executed them on the spot, and opened floodgates to massive resettlement of ethnic Russians to wipe natives off the map. It's still in the living memory. Nobody wants to relive that again, which is why this time nobody intends to make themselves an easy target with neutrality again and countries have only increased military cooperation the more hostile Russia has become.

roenxi 2y ago
> Nothing of this is new. In the 1940s, Russians acted the same way... This whole paragraph isn't a serious argument. Putin was born in the 1950s and while it might be in living memory none of the leadership class involved in this were alive in the 1940s, the economic concerns of the pre-WWII world were different to the modern era, and Russia had a dramatic shift of government philosophy in the 90s. You may as well make policy on the basis that the British have global imperial ambitions, that the Germans are genocidal, that the Japanese are threatening to invade the Philippines or that the US has a small government. You can't lumber people with the assumption that their government is going to behave the same as in the 1940s. > Russians are huffing and puffing about NATO because it makes riskier and costlier for them to invade other countries and kill people there. That's the simple truth. Everything else is bullshit and the theories you are spinning do not hold up to any scrutiny. Can you articulate my theories? Because you seem to be in furious agreement on this point, you just haven't managed to take the next logical step and append some serious reflection and a "Did the policies we adopted make the situation better or worse? And who for?" on the end. Because we seem to have adopted a position that has left almost literally everyone involved and most of the bystanders in a worse position than if NATO hadn't been posturing against the Russians for the last 30 years. Driven, I suspect, by the same inane tiger-with-unchanging-stripes logic that you are suggesting. And even if that logic is right, looking to the 1940s should come with a "and policy today has to be completely different to avoid the large and catastrophic war that then followed". Not this gentle escalatory madness that is taking place and the breakdown of communication and empathy that many people seem to want. The big lesson of WWII is Europe can't afford to solve their problems with big military actions. The NATO strategy of avoiding diplomacy suggests we are going to relearn that lesson which is moderately terrifying.
- mopsi 2y ago
  You may as well make policy on the basis that the British have global imperial ambitions, that the Germans are genocidal, that the Japanese are threatening to invade the Philippines or that the US has a small government. You can't lumber people with the assumption that their government is going to behave the same as in the 1940s. Going to? They never stopped. Russia is behaving as it has always behaved. When they invaded Ukraine in 2014, they set up fake People's Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk. These fake countries then asked Russia for help and the jolly Russian army immediately entered Ukraine to "protect" them. Later, Luhansk and Donetsk held fake referendums and asked Russia to annex them. Russia gladly accepted the request and they became a part of Russian Federation. This is exactly the same blueprint as was used in 1940 to occupy Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Russians even tried the same with Finland and established Finnish Democratic Republic, which had to be scrapped after Finns put up a stiff resistance and Russians lost the Winter War. And they continued with this after the WWII to set up communist dictatorships all across Europe, same blueprint over and over again. Local population "invites" and Russians flood in with tanks and guns to "help". If you know history, then this is like watching a re-run. Can you articulate my theories? Because you seem to be in furious agreement on this point, you just haven't managed to take the next logical step and append some serious reflection and a "Did the policies we adopted make the situation better or worse? And who for?" on the end. Because we seem to have adopted a position that has left almost literally everyone involved and most of the bystanders in a worse position than if NATO hadn't been posturing against the Russians for the last 30 years. Driven, I suspect, by the same inane tiger-with-unchanging-stripes logic that you are suggesting. Your theories have nothing to do with facts on the ground. You say that NATO has been posturing against Russia. Nothing could be further from the truth. MILITARY SPENDING of Europe had continued to steadily decrease since the end of the Cold War. In 2006, the total spending was 190 billion. By 2014, it was down to 162 billion. As a percentage of GDP, Cold War era spending was 3-5%, now it's 1-2%. EUROPEAN MILITARY CAPABILITIES have been in steep decline too. In 1990, German Army had 308 000 personnel, 5045 tanks, 2136 IFVs. To cut costs, Germany disbanded most of its army and sold off its equipment all over the world, as far as Chile. By 2015, only 61 312 personnel, 225 tanks and 406 remained. The same trends were mirrored in other countries. AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENCE in Europe was also in decline. In 1987, the US had 80 military bases in Europe. 30 years later, less than half remained. Furthermore, these bases are a shadow of their former self: the number of US military personnel deployed to Europe is at the lowest since the WWII, down from 320 000 during the 1980s to around 60 000 nowadays, mostly manning facilities like the massive military hospital at Ramstein airbase. In 1989, US Army had 5000 tanks in Germany alone. In 2013, the last twenty American tanks departed Europe. NEW DEPLOYMENTS TO EUROPE were ridiculously small, mainly light infantry for host nation training purposes: as of 2017, a single non-permanent battalion with 800 personnel and 4 jets in Estonia, a 1200-strong battalion in Latvia and another in Lithuania with 4 jets, and 4000-strong armored battalion in Poland. Plus 4 jets in Romania for three months in the summer. Is this the infamous "encirclement"? CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS is an adequate comparison only insofar as it applies to Russian behavior. Russia and NATO agreed in the founding act of 1997 that NATO would not station any missiles in Eastern Europe. NATO has upheld that commitment for a quarter of a century. NATO nuclear missiles remain where they were 50 years ago, whereas Russia has recently moved theirs westward into Belarus, an unstable dictatorship held up only by Russian secret services. If you insist on making comparisons with Cuba, then the closest thing Europe offers is Russian enclave of Kaliningrad in the middle of Europe, with short-range Russian nuclear missiles pointed at Europe: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-3.jpg https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... PRIOR TO THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE, Europe was unilaterally disarming itself to the extent that Germany didn't even have enough equipment for joint exercises with other countries. Germans were mocked for using painted broomsticks for cannons on their vehicles, and French president talked that NATO was obsolete and "braindead". Central and Eastern Europe had been accepted into NATO, but their fears were not taken seriously and often even ridiculed, and nothing was done to bolster their security like had been done in West Germany during the Cold War. Russia has gone as far as flying drones in NATO airspace, including over cities, armed with warheads. In a recent incident, Romanian F-16s tracked such drone for half an hour without shooting it down because obsolete rules of engagement disallow that. NATO has been unable to reach a consensus whether armed drones from a openly hostile country should be shot down in NATO airspace before they hit any city and kill people there. Where is this posturing that you talk about? It is easy to throw such phrases around, but I fail to see any substance behind them.

by mopsi 2y ago

roenxi 2y ago

> Nothing of this is new. In the 1940s, Russians acted the same way... This whole paragraph isn't a serious argument. Putin was born in the 1950s and while it might be in living memory none of the leadership class involved in this were alive in the 1940s, the economic concerns of the pre-WWII world were different to the modern era, and Russia had a dramatic shift of government philosophy in the 90s. You may as well make policy on the basis that the British have global imperial ambitions, that the Germans are genocidal, that the Japanese are threatening to invade the Philippines or that the US has a small government. You can't lumber people with the assumption that their government is going to behave the same as in the 1940s. > Russians are huffing and puffing about NATO because it makes riskier and costlier for them to invade other countries and kill people there. That's the simple truth. Everything else is bullshit and the theories you are spinning do not hold up to any scrutiny. Can you articulate my theories? Because you seem to be in furious agreement on this point, you just haven't managed to take the next logical step and append some serious reflection and a "Did the policies we adopted make the situation better or worse? And who for?" on the end. Because we seem to have adopted a position that has left almost literally everyone involved and most of the bystanders in a worse position than if NATO hadn't been posturing against the Russians for the last 30 years. Driven, I suspect, by the same inane tiger-with-unchanging-stripes logic that you are suggesting. And even if that logic is right, looking to the 1940s should come with a "and policy today has to be completely different to avoid the large and catastrophic war that then followed". Not this gentle escalatory madness that is taking place and the breakdown of communication and empathy that many people seem to want. The big lesson of WWII is Europe can't afford to solve their problems with big military actions. The NATO strategy of avoiding diplomacy suggests we are going to relearn that lesson which is moderately terrifying.

mopsi 2y ago
You may as well make policy on the basis that the British have global imperial ambitions, that the Germans are genocidal, that the Japanese are threatening to invade the Philippines or that the US has a small government. You can't lumber people with the assumption that their government is going to behave the same as in the 1940s. Going to? They never stopped. Russia is behaving as it has always behaved. When they invaded Ukraine in 2014, they set up fake People's Republics of Luhansk and Donetsk. These fake countries then asked Russia for help and the jolly Russian army immediately entered Ukraine to "protect" them. Later, Luhansk and Donetsk held fake referendums and asked Russia to annex them. Russia gladly accepted the request and they became a part of Russian Federation. This is exactly the same blueprint as was used in 1940 to occupy Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Russians even tried the same with Finland and established Finnish Democratic Republic, which had to be scrapped after Finns put up a stiff resistance and Russians lost the Winter War. And they continued with this after the WWII to set up communist dictatorships all across Europe, same blueprint over and over again. Local population "invites" and Russians flood in with tanks and guns to "help". If you know history, then this is like watching a re-run. Can you articulate my theories? Because you seem to be in furious agreement on this point, you just haven't managed to take the next logical step and append some serious reflection and a "Did the policies we adopted make the situation better or worse? And who for?" on the end. Because we seem to have adopted a position that has left almost literally everyone involved and most of the bystanders in a worse position than if NATO hadn't been posturing against the Russians for the last 30 years. Driven, I suspect, by the same inane tiger-with-unchanging-stripes logic that you are suggesting. Your theories have nothing to do with facts on the ground. You say that NATO has been posturing against Russia. Nothing could be further from the truth. MILITARY SPENDING of Europe had continued to steadily decrease since the end of the Cold War. In 2006, the total spending was 190 billion. By 2014, it was down to 162 billion. As a percentage of GDP, Cold War era spending was 3-5%, now it's 1-2%. EUROPEAN MILITARY CAPABILITIES have been in steep decline too. In 1990, German Army had 308 000 personnel, 5045 tanks, 2136 IFVs. To cut costs, Germany disbanded most of its army and sold off its equipment all over the world, as far as Chile. By 2015, only 61 312 personnel, 225 tanks and 406 remained. The same trends were mirrored in other countries. AMERICAN MILITARY PRESENCE in Europe was also in decline. In 1987, the US had 80 military bases in Europe. 30 years later, less than half remained. Furthermore, these bases are a shadow of their former self: the number of US military personnel deployed to Europe is at the lowest since the WWII, down from 320 000 during the 1980s to around 60 000 nowadays, mostly manning facilities like the massive military hospital at Ramstein airbase. In 1989, US Army had 5000 tanks in Germany alone. In 2013, the last twenty American tanks departed Europe. NEW DEPLOYMENTS TO EUROPE were ridiculously small, mainly light infantry for host nation training purposes: as of 2017, a single non-permanent battalion with 800 personnel and 4 jets in Estonia, a 1200-strong battalion in Latvia and another in Lithuania with 4 jets, and 4000-strong armored battalion in Poland. Plus 4 jets in Romania for three months in the summer. Is this the infamous "encirclement"? CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS is an adequate comparison only insofar as it applies to Russian behavior. Russia and NATO agreed in the founding act of 1997 that NATO would not station any missiles in Eastern Europe. NATO has upheld that commitment for a quarter of a century. NATO nuclear missiles remain where they were 50 years ago, whereas Russia has recently moved theirs westward into Belarus, an unstable dictatorship held up only by Russian secret services. If you insist on making comparisons with Cuba, then the closest thing Europe offers is Russian enclave of Kaliningrad in the middle of Europe, with short-range Russian nuclear missiles pointed at Europe: https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/11/russianmissiles-1122-3.jpg https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1... PRIOR TO THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE, Europe was unilaterally disarming itself to the extent that Germany didn't even have enough equipment for joint exercises with other countries. Germans were mocked for using painted broomsticks for cannons on their vehicles, and French president talked that NATO was obsolete and "braindead". Central and Eastern Europe had been accepted into NATO, but their fears were not taken seriously and often even ridiculed, and nothing was done to bolster their security like had been done in West Germany during the Cold War. Russia has gone as far as flying drones in NATO airspace, including over cities, armed with warheads. In a recent incident, Romanian F-16s tracked such drone for half an hour without shooting it down because obsolete rules of engagement disallow that. NATO has been unable to reach a consensus whether armed drones from a openly hostile country should be shot down in NATO airspace before they hit any city and kill people there. Where is this posturing that you talk about? It is easy to throw such phrases around, but I fail to see any substance behind them.