NATO vs Russia
Excuse me....but you not be addressing your comments to the Russians instead of Americans?
Last time I checked it was the Russians that had sent their tanks to somewhere without permission.
Or...did you simply ignore that small fact out of Pavlov like reaction to the mention of Trump's name?
Last time I checked it was the Russians that had sent their tanks to somewhere without permission.
Or...did you simply ignore that small fact out of Pavlov like reaction to the mention of Trump's name?
That was the point I made to the students. It your plan involves your forces in other countries, then you have to talk to that country and allow for that in the planning. Their plan just assumed some sort of divine right to move forces around as they saw fit. Trump was still a minor TV personality then.
Spoon PPRuNerist & Mad Inistrator
Gentlemen, please! No fighting in the War Room! This is the NATO vs Russia thread, not US politics nor UK / EU / US bickering.
The following 3 users liked this post by Saab Dastard:
Agreed. Friends should be able to take a little light criticism.
For henra
I see your point about nukes, but the NPT is dead. If Pakistan has them, I have no issue at all with Germans having them. De Gaulle's independent nuclear posture is looking more prescient by the day.
For Saab:
Let's see, who dragged Trump into this?
Safetypee. Location=UK.
Europe not paying into the NATO common coffers sufficiently to satisfy Washington, where the treaty was signed, goes back to Ike.
It's an old story, basically as old as NATO, back when it was the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact Russia on the other side of the line.
That leaching habit was as obvious as a dog's balls when I was in NATO in the 90's.
There was one A-side. The US.
There was maybe a B-side or two.
The rest began as C-sides.
As the CIS was all that was left, and the Partnership for Peace was one of the promising initiatives ongoing, and we (NATO) were working with the Russians in Northern Bosnia, the friction subsided for a bit.
Now the setting is different. The pressure is on.
On the bright side, Sweden and Finland are now on side, which is a silver lining to the cloud.
I see your point about nukes, but the NPT is dead. If Pakistan has them, I have no issue at all with Germans having them. De Gaulle's independent nuclear posture is looking more prescient by the day.
For Saab:
Let's see, who dragged Trump into this?
Safetypee. Location=UK.
Europe not paying into the NATO common coffers sufficiently to satisfy Washington, where the treaty was signed, goes back to Ike.
It's an old story, basically as old as NATO, back when it was the
That leaching habit was as obvious as a dog's balls when I was in NATO in the 90's.
There was one A-side. The US.
There was maybe a B-side or two.
The rest began as C-sides.
As the CIS was all that was left, and the Partnership for Peace was one of the promising initiatives ongoing, and we (NATO) were working with the Russians in Northern Bosnia, the friction subsided for a bit.
Now the setting is different. The pressure is on.
On the bright side, Sweden and Finland are now on side, which is a silver lining to the cloud.
"On the bright side, Sweden and Finland are now on side, which is a silver lining to the cloud."
Exactly - a major change in pressure on Russia - they used to rule the Baltic - now they're trapped into two tiny areas of beach
Exactly - a major change in pressure on Russia - they used to rule the Baltic - now they're trapped into two tiny areas of beach
No conclusions drawn ....... merely H 'n' H pondering "life, the universe and NATO"!
I'd be interested in any observations ....... tho, maybe PPRuNe is not the place .......
Fear not, Putin’s stunning cunning plans will keep waking NATO, drawing them further together.
Comrade P, creating his own worst nightmare.
Comrade P, creating his own worst nightmare.
Last edited by jolihokistix; 17th May 2024 at 16:12.
I perhaps came away from Maxwell with a different perspective. Have you ever heard the phrase American Imperialism? That is where I met it writ large when working with he students. I was able to enlighten then and explain being American does not actually give you an automatic right to move armoured divisions into other countries just because you feel like it.
One thing that's worried me a bit re NATO are some of the ex-Warsaw Pact countries who joined 99 - 04 and even Türkiye given their position on the war in Ukraine. Like any family, the more members that are gathered in the room, the more likely spats will break out leading to a less than united front. And, given the legacy of the old USSR/Warsaw Pact which still pervades (certainly in the Kremlin), some of the NATO "family" will undoubtedly have similar factions in their own political arenas. We have seen some of that already. And on a security front too............
No conclusions drawn ....... merely H 'n' H pondering "life, the universe and NATO"!
I'd be interested in any observations ....... tho, maybe PPRuNe is not the place .......
No conclusions drawn ....... merely H 'n' H pondering "life, the universe and NATO"!
I'd be interested in any observations ....... tho, maybe PPRuNe is not the place .......
That's part of the fun with 16 or 19 nations, even more fun with 32. Herding cats.
The NATO game of musical chairs doubtless amuses Vlad and his cronies.
In other news:
A top NATO general says Russian troops don't have the numbers or the skills to mount a strategic breakthrough in Kharkiv (msn.com)
This is one of those "running off at the mouth" things that I wish flag officers and general officers would do less of.
- A top NATO general says Russia won't be able to achieve a "strategic breakthrough" in Kharkiv.
- US Army Gen. Christopher Cavoli said Russia just doesn't have the numbers or skills to pull it off.
- Last month, Cavoli told Congress that the Russian army is 15% bigger than when it invaded Ukraine.
What if the good General is underestimating the opponent? Never happened before has it? Oh, wait, yes it has ...
Maybe this is part of General
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th May 2024 at 13:20.
Maybe on JB. Each nation is entitled to its own take on a crisis. If you look at the responses to the civil war in Yugoslavia, which ended up in NATO's first out of area operation, the responses were mixed - in part due to how any response was going to be received in Russia.
That's part of the fun with 16 or 19 nations, even more fun with 32. Herding cats.
That's part of the fun with 16 or 19 nations, even more fun with 32. Herding cats.
Given we seem to be reverting back towards a far more polarised world again with a resurgence of Russia (and China) against the West (certainly that seems to be Valds viewpoint), and given the old Soviet/Russian way of "working from within" to foment discord, what will be the impact on NATOs effectiveness in any NATO vs Russia scenario given that several NATO members have strong historic ties back to Moscow?
Help me here. How friendly is China to Russia? Seems to be a friendship of convenience to be honest favouring China's politics. Wasn't so long ago Russia was invading China.
China needs the Wests money more than it needs Russia's friendship.
China needs the Wests money more than it needs Russia's friendship.
The following users liked this post:
China needs Russia as a counter-weight to the USA - if there was no Russia it would be a straight standoff and even Xi knows that probably won't end well for him. The USA saw of the Soviet Union, and it saw of Japan economically. I doubt he thinks they're much use except as a source of raw materials and some advanced military hardware but as long as they are causing a ruckus it divides US attention.
China needs Russia as a counter-weight to the USA - if there was no Russia it would be a straight standoff and even Xi knows that probably won't end well for him. The USA saw of the Soviet Union, and it saw of Japan economically. I doubt he thinks they're much use except as a source of raw materials and some advanced military hardware but as long as they are causing a ruckus it divides US attention.
henra: not the first time I've seen that prediction (although the time horizon was about 25 years) but at least that would bound the NATO/Russia problem a bit more tightly.
Turkey has been demonstrating it for about 50 years (see Cyprus among other fun issues).
Not everyone was in favor of NATO expansion but those in favor of it slowly got the support they needed.
The Germans now have their buffer states to the east, so I guess that they are satisfied.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
If anyone has doubts about China's attitude to Russia, read "On the Beach", by Nevil Shute. Basically the account of how the war started. 1957 I believe it was written. Basically what Henra has said. China wants the eastern part of Russia.