NATO vs Russia
If he gets back into office, what happens if he takes the initiative to send the one year notice that the US is leaving NATO?
I don't think that will happen (the real estate / basing is far too valuable) either one, but what it if does?
What is Plan B among the other 31 NATO nations?
I don't think that will happen (the real estate / basing is far too valuable) either one, but what it if does?
What is Plan B among the other 31 NATO nations?
As with anything to do with international politics and agreements its rarely simple.
The 2% seems a reasonable attempt to try and find a way to balance across a huge range of diverse economies.
But it is a broad brush stroke. For example the US is likely to always be spending such an amount, or more, due in part to it's non NATO commitments around the world.
The 2% can be further distorted by countries having different allocations made from military budgets.
Defense research, coastguard services, intelligence services etc. The more you count as defence spending the easier it is to reach the 2%.
For example some countries regard the coastguard service as a military force, others as more akin to a hybrid police/border/rescue service.
It's always a problem when using a broad measure across a large range of diverse entities that it's sometimes comparing apples with oranges and tomatoes.
The 2% is a credible attempt to find a balance, but it's not perfect.
The 2% seems a reasonable attempt to try and find a way to balance across a huge range of diverse economies.
But it is a broad brush stroke. For example the US is likely to always be spending such an amount, or more, due in part to it's non NATO commitments around the world.
The 2% can be further distorted by countries having different allocations made from military budgets.
Defense research, coastguard services, intelligence services etc. The more you count as defence spending the easier it is to reach the 2%.
For example some countries regard the coastguard service as a military force, others as more akin to a hybrid police/border/rescue service.
It's always a problem when using a broad measure across a large range of diverse entities that it's sometimes comparing apples with oranges and tomatoes.
The 2% is a credible attempt to find a balance, but it's not perfect.
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
THREAD: a Russian analysis of EU military capability
“Above all, SVR analysts predict that Europe will take 15yrs to rebuild its own stocks, at least!
For more than a decade, Russia will therefore consider that Europe is vulnerable & it intends to take advantage of it”…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...aign=topunroll
The Russian SVR (equivalent to our DGSE) has released an in-depth analysis of European military capabilities.
Spoiler alert: the result is catastrophic.
Let me explain how they got there and why it's such a big deal for us.
First of all, the GU (Russian military intelligence) has the habit of observing factory production to draw up an inventory of our resources. The SVR did it differently: they noted the figures for deliveries to Ukraine and the compared to those announced.
They were thus able to determine the production of each national industry, and compare it with Ukrainian needs. They were therefore able to see the delta between what Ukraine needs and what we can provide.
So much for the method, now for what their report says.
At the speed at which the Europeans are producing munitions, we will only be able to meet Ukraine's needs in 2025. So 3 years late, which is already quite shameful and catastrophic strategically speaking, but it is not all...
Above all, SVR analysts predict that Europe will take 15 years to rebuild its own stocks, at least! For more than a decade, Russia will therefore consider that Europe is vulnerable and it intends to take advantage of it.
The rest of the report encourages Kremlin decision-makers to capitalize on this weakness by taking “hybrid war measures” against Europe. The objective being to divide the Europeans, disperse their attention and secure a victory in Ukraine for Russia.
The GU would have reached the same conclusion, except that it established a list of munitions factories to monitor and potentially sabotage.
We are very late, Russia knows it, it sees it, and it is organizing itself to hurt us as much as possible. What does that mean exactly?
Already, this SVR analysis report is intended for the Kremlin and the National Security Council. It is from this type of documents that political decision-makers (Putin) will make decisions. This shows the importance.
The recommendations that the Kremlin will receive from its foreign intelligence service are literally to harm us as much as possible. Our weakness is identified, it is targeted and Russia just needs to press on the wound. So we are only at the beginning.
Then, the observation drawn up by the SVR is even worse than I thought: It will take us at least 15 years to rebuild our own stocks?! Realize the degree of Europe's unpreparedness for conflict after 2 years of war on its borders.
This report also comes right at a time when the risk of Donald Trump being re-elected is growing every week. And I remind you that Trump is ready to dynamite NATO, and it doesn't matter what Russia plans to do behind it. At least that's what he says.
The source of this information is the excellent intelligence journal Intelligence Online. It should therefore be taken very seriously and gives us a good idea of the possible evolution of Russian-European relations in the years to come.
This is another opportunity to sound the alarm and force Europe to wake up and stop taking peace for granted. We are entering a new era where our naivety and our wait-and-see attitude will cost us enormously, at all levels.
We must not forget that during this time, Russian factories are running at full capacity and they are preparing for a direct confrontation. Without going into an arms race with Russia, we must invest massively and quickly in our common defense…
I'll give you the link to the article for those who can read it:
* [behind paywall]
https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/re...,110157230-art
“Above all, SVR analysts predict that Europe will take 15yrs to rebuild its own stocks, at least!
For more than a decade, Russia will therefore consider that Europe is vulnerable & it intends to take advantage of it”…
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...aign=topunroll
The Russian SVR (equivalent to our DGSE) has released an in-depth analysis of European military capabilities.
Spoiler alert: the result is catastrophic.
Let me explain how they got there and why it's such a big deal for us.
First of all, the GU (Russian military intelligence) has the habit of observing factory production to draw up an inventory of our resources. The SVR did it differently: they noted the figures for deliveries to Ukraine and the compared to those announced.
They were thus able to determine the production of each national industry, and compare it with Ukrainian needs. They were therefore able to see the delta between what Ukraine needs and what we can provide.
So much for the method, now for what their report says.
At the speed at which the Europeans are producing munitions, we will only be able to meet Ukraine's needs in 2025. So 3 years late, which is already quite shameful and catastrophic strategically speaking, but it is not all...
Above all, SVR analysts predict that Europe will take 15 years to rebuild its own stocks, at least! For more than a decade, Russia will therefore consider that Europe is vulnerable and it intends to take advantage of it.
The rest of the report encourages Kremlin decision-makers to capitalize on this weakness by taking “hybrid war measures” against Europe. The objective being to divide the Europeans, disperse their attention and secure a victory in Ukraine for Russia.
The GU would have reached the same conclusion, except that it established a list of munitions factories to monitor and potentially sabotage.
We are very late, Russia knows it, it sees it, and it is organizing itself to hurt us as much as possible. What does that mean exactly?
Already, this SVR analysis report is intended for the Kremlin and the National Security Council. It is from this type of documents that political decision-makers (Putin) will make decisions. This shows the importance.
The recommendations that the Kremlin will receive from its foreign intelligence service are literally to harm us as much as possible. Our weakness is identified, it is targeted and Russia just needs to press on the wound. So we are only at the beginning.
Then, the observation drawn up by the SVR is even worse than I thought: It will take us at least 15 years to rebuild our own stocks?! Realize the degree of Europe's unpreparedness for conflict after 2 years of war on its borders.
This report also comes right at a time when the risk of Donald Trump being re-elected is growing every week. And I remind you that Trump is ready to dynamite NATO, and it doesn't matter what Russia plans to do behind it. At least that's what he says.
The source of this information is the excellent intelligence journal Intelligence Online. It should therefore be taken very seriously and gives us a good idea of the possible evolution of Russian-European relations in the years to come.
This is another opportunity to sound the alarm and force Europe to wake up and stop taking peace for granted. We are entering a new era where our naivety and our wait-and-see attitude will cost us enormously, at all levels.
We must not forget that during this time, Russian factories are running at full capacity and they are preparing for a direct confrontation. Without going into an arms race with Russia, we must invest massively and quickly in our common defense…
I'll give you the link to the article for those who can read it:
* [behind paywall]
https://www.intelligenceonline.fr/re...,110157230-art
Politicians don't do complex....................
Well, there's always the nuclear deterrent eh?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,847 Likes
on
1,217 Posts
We must not forget that during this time, Russian factories are running at full capacity and they are preparing for a direct confrontation. Without going into an arms race with Russia, we must invest massively and quickly in our common defense…
They ran to keep up with the west and bankrupted themselves so the wall fell, with sanctions and the masive reduction in Russian energy use, helped along by Ukraine targetting their infrastructure, I would have thought they have a limited time before it happens again, and on the other side of the coin, a lot of the production machinery is now western manufactured and one hopes we will sanction those, so their refineries, manufacturing and infrastructure will gradually fail with no replacements being forthcoming.
But that is Cold War part 2.
They ran to keep up with the west and bankrupted themselves so the wall fell, with sanctions and the massive reduction in Russian energy use, helped along by Ukraine targeting their infrastructure, I would have thought they have a limited time before it happens again, and on the other side of the coin, a lot of the production machinery is now western manufactured and one hopes we will sanction those, so their refineries, manufacturing and infrastructure will gradually fail with no replacements being forthcoming.
They ran to keep up with the west and bankrupted themselves so the wall fell, with sanctions and the massive reduction in Russian energy use, helped along by Ukraine targeting their infrastructure, I would have thought they have a limited time before it happens again, and on the other side of the coin, a lot of the production machinery is now western manufactured and one hopes we will sanction those, so their refineries, manufacturing and infrastructure will gradually fail with no replacements being forthcoming.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...n-arms-defence
Germany's Scholz calls for urgent 'mass production' of European arms
Speaking at the groundbreaking ceremony for Rheinmetall’s new munitions factory, Scholz said European nations must pool together orders and financing to provide the defence industry with purchase guarantees for the next decades.
“This is urgently necessary because the painful reality is that we do not live in times of peace,” he said, pointing to Russia’s war on Ukraine. “We must move from manufacturing to mass production of armaments,” he said, arguing that “those who want peace must be able to successfully deter aggressors”.
Weighed down by its militaristic past, Germany has in recent decades been circumspect about its defence forces and armaments industry. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 upended Berlin’s post-World War II pacifist tendencies, and forced its transformation into a proponent of heavy rearmament.
Germany is now Ukraine’s second biggest weapons contributor, and Scholz has been vocal in pushing other EU nations to give more. What happens in Ukraine will decide “if our peace order, our rules-based world has a future,” said Scholz, adding that Russia must “fail with the attempt to swallow its neighbour by force”.
The chancellor also reiterated that armaments pledges from other EU nations for Ukraine were still insufficient.
The EU has set up a joint financing mechanism to meet Ukrainian demand for weapons, but the bloc has struggled to make good on promised deliveries. Brussels pledged to provide a million artillery shells to Ukraine by March 2024, but the EU last week admitted it can only produce just over half that by the deadline.
Scholz underlined that it was key to shift gears from years of under-investment in the defence sector to building up much-needed production capacity. “Tanks, howitzers, helicopters and air defence systems are not lined up on the shelves. If nothing is ordered for years, then nothing is produced,” he warned.
Rheinmetall’s new factory in Unterluess is scheduled to begin production in 2025 with an initial production run of 50,000 shells a year, before progressively reaching its full annual capacity of 200,000.
Putting the volume in perspective, Scholz said that thousands of shells are fired on a daily basis at the frontlines in Ukraine currently. In addition, the German army’s own weapons store was “rather empty” even before the war.
Rheinmetall’s boss Armin Papperger said the aim of the new factory is to help secure Germany’s “strategic sovereignty in the large-calibre ammunition domain”.
The company is aiming to churn out up to 500,000 shells this year overall, a seven-fold jump from the 70,000 annual production before the Ukraine war.
Germany's Scholz calls for urgent 'mass production' of European arms
Speaking at the groundbreaking ceremony for Rheinmetall’s new munitions factory, Scholz said European nations must pool together orders and financing to provide the defence industry with purchase guarantees for the next decades.
“This is urgently necessary because the painful reality is that we do not live in times of peace,” he said, pointing to Russia’s war on Ukraine. “We must move from manufacturing to mass production of armaments,” he said, arguing that “those who want peace must be able to successfully deter aggressors”.
Weighed down by its militaristic past, Germany has in recent decades been circumspect about its defence forces and armaments industry. But Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 upended Berlin’s post-World War II pacifist tendencies, and forced its transformation into a proponent of heavy rearmament.
Germany is now Ukraine’s second biggest weapons contributor, and Scholz has been vocal in pushing other EU nations to give more. What happens in Ukraine will decide “if our peace order, our rules-based world has a future,” said Scholz, adding that Russia must “fail with the attempt to swallow its neighbour by force”.
The chancellor also reiterated that armaments pledges from other EU nations for Ukraine were still insufficient.
The EU has set up a joint financing mechanism to meet Ukrainian demand for weapons, but the bloc has struggled to make good on promised deliveries. Brussels pledged to provide a million artillery shells to Ukraine by March 2024, but the EU last week admitted it can only produce just over half that by the deadline.
Scholz underlined that it was key to shift gears from years of under-investment in the defence sector to building up much-needed production capacity. “Tanks, howitzers, helicopters and air defence systems are not lined up on the shelves. If nothing is ordered for years, then nothing is produced,” he warned.
Rheinmetall’s new factory in Unterluess is scheduled to begin production in 2025 with an initial production run of 50,000 shells a year, before progressively reaching its full annual capacity of 200,000.
Putting the volume in perspective, Scholz said that thousands of shells are fired on a daily basis at the frontlines in Ukraine currently. In addition, the German army’s own weapons store was “rather empty” even before the war.
Rheinmetall’s boss Armin Papperger said the aim of the new factory is to help secure Germany’s “strategic sovereignty in the large-calibre ammunition domain”.
The company is aiming to churn out up to 500,000 shells this year overall, a seven-fold jump from the 70,000 annual production before the Ukraine war.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,923
Received 2,847 Likes
on
1,217 Posts
Germany's Scholz calls for urgent 'mass production' of European arms
Telling the West they need to massively ramp up weapon production because of the threat of Russia invading European countries, while denying Ukraine the long range weapons that could have destroyed their bridge and supply lines thus thwarting Russias ambitions in the West.
You just couldn't make it up. The clowns are truly running the circus.
The following users liked this post:
Irony:
Telling the West they need to massively ramp up weapon production because of the threat of Russia invading European countries, while denying Ukraine the long range weapons that could have destroyed their bridge and supply lines thus thwarting Russias ambitions in the West.
You just couldn't make it up. The clowns are truly running the circus.
Telling the West they need to massively ramp up weapon production because of the threat of Russia invading European countries, while denying Ukraine the long range weapons that could have destroyed their bridge and supply lines thus thwarting Russias ambitions in the West.
You just couldn't make it up. The clowns are truly running the circus.
The following users liked this post:
As ever, ORAC, you find some thought-provoking stuff. Thank you. One comment on this.
Too late, that's already happening.
After 20 years of letting the muscles atrophy, you are asking for a personal max dead lift.
Not gonna happen.
But at least they are heading back to the gym.
Nutty, your Navy's carrier just go underway for a large NATO exercise...but...
Well done PoW and crew for getting underway ahead of schedule... the signal from a USN-type Flag Officer would be "Bravo Zulu"
Speaking of USN type flag officers: Admiran Leighton "Snuffy" Smith was the man in charge at AFSOUTH back in 95 when the NATO ops in Former Yugoslavia went kinetic (USS Normandy's Tomahawk strikes in Serb air defense sites) and the IFOR deployment commenced.
Amongst his other awards:
Aviation Content: Naval Aviator, flew A-4's and A-7's off of aircraft carriers. Passed away 28 November 2023.
Compare the state of readiness in NATO in 1995 to today. I'd say the Peace Dividend went a bit too far.
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2...n-arms-defence
Germany's Scholz calls for urgent 'mass production' of European arms
Germany's Scholz calls for urgent 'mass production' of European arms
Not gonna happen.
But at least they are heading back to the gym.
Nutty, your Navy's carrier just go underway for a large NATO exercise...but...
Royal Navy carrier HMS Prince of Wales (R09) departed its Portsmouth home port on Monday to participate in a massive NATO exercise in place of carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth (R09), which was sidelined for repairs.
“Britain’s biggest warship today sailed for Norway to lead an international task group in one of the most important military exercises in a generation,” the Royal Navy announced on Monday. The ship’s company made rapid preparations for the carrier to lead the the service’s participation in exercise Steadfast Defender 2024.
“I would like to congratulate the crew of HMS Prince of Wales for their hard work and dedication in rapidly preparing the ship for departure. The ability to deploy hundreds of crew to make ready one of the world’s most complex aircraft carriers within a week is testament to the skill and ability of the Royal Navy,” stated U.K. Defence Secretary Grant Shapps in the release.
Capt. Will Blackett, commanding officer of Prince of Wales, said the carrier was bought from a 30-day notice for deployment to immediate readiness in a single week through a monumental effort by the whole enterprise, including Queen Elizabeth, Portsmouth Naval Base and numerous defense and industry partners. “I am immensely proud of how my ship’s company and their families have responded to this short-notice tasking,” said Blackett in the release.
“Britain’s biggest warship today sailed for Norway to lead an international task group in one of the most important military exercises in a generation,” the Royal Navy announced on Monday. The ship’s company made rapid preparations for the carrier to lead the the service’s participation in exercise Steadfast Defender 2024.
“I would like to congratulate the crew of HMS Prince of Wales for their hard work and dedication in rapidly preparing the ship for departure. The ability to deploy hundreds of crew to make ready one of the world’s most complex aircraft carriers within a week is testament to the skill and ability of the Royal Navy,” stated U.K. Defence Secretary Grant Shapps in the release.
Capt. Will Blackett, commanding officer of Prince of Wales, said the carrier was bought from a 30-day notice for deployment to immediate readiness in a single week through a monumental effort by the whole enterprise, including Queen Elizabeth, Portsmouth Naval Base and numerous defense and industry partners. “I am immensely proud of how my ship’s company and their families have responded to this short-notice tasking,” said Blackett in the release.
Speaking of USN type flag officers: Admiran Leighton "Snuffy" Smith was the man in charge at AFSOUTH back in 95 when the NATO ops in Former Yugoslavia went kinetic (USS Normandy's Tomahawk strikes in Serb air defense sites) and the IFOR deployment commenced.
Amongst his other awards:
Honorary Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire (invested personally by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom)
Compare the state of readiness in NATO in 1995 to today. I'd say the Peace Dividend went a bit too far.
The following users liked this post:
Trouble was - although it was clear from about 2008 when that nice Mr Putin did his first dosido with Medvedev there was going to be trouble, no-one wanted to hear it, let alone do anything about it. Aside from the minor matter of dealing with some rather unpleasant adherents of the RoP in numerous places (instead of dealing with their enablers), there's a whole societal social care thing - an essentially bottomless pit - to fund. Not to mention an entire ED&I industry.
It's the old tale of knowing something is coming is one thing, wanting to deal with it, something else entirely.
That said, the Trumpton Loon aside, they'll have to be very careful not to provoke a Art V response. Given the performance thus far of their air and ground forces against an opponent with very limited long-range reach, they could find themselves losing a significant chunk of force structure in short order.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Poland may obtain nuclear weapons in a few years
This was stated by Polish General Jarosław Kraszewski in an interview with RMF FM.
He called such a scenario quite realistic - within the framework of NATO's Nuclear sharing program. "I consider having such an arsenal as a task for several years. I hope it will happen," he concluded.
To the comment that there is a cost to owning and using nuclear weapons, General Kraszewski responded that "peace and security have no price."
Why not pick up a few dozen from the French? The NPT is a dead letter anyway.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nato-deterrent
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister
Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
The UK could contribute to a new European nuclear shield if Donald Trumpbecomes US president again, a senior German minister has suggested, drawing British politicians into the debate about how Europe’s security could be bolstered in the event of the Republican frontrunner winning in November.….
On Tuesday, Christian Lindner, the German finance minister and the leader of the Free Democratic party, called on politicians to consider an alternative model that could include British and French nuclear weapons.
In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”…..
Manfred Weber, the German conservative who heads the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) grouping in the European parliament, has thrown his weight behind the debate. He said he did not rule out a European nuclear umbrella and called for “a new chapter” to be opened with London.
“Macron has already made a vague offer to talk about the importance of the French nuclear forces for Europe,” Weber said. “Now that Donald Trump is openly questioning the role of the USA as a protective power would be the right moment for this. The same applies to the British, with whom we should finally start a new chapter of cooperation after Brexit.”….
The UK has said its nuclear weapons would be available for use at the request of Nato’s supreme allied commander Europe, the alliance’s most senior uniformed officer, and that they would only be used “in extreme circumstances of self-defence including the defence of our Nato allies”.
This offer, however, was made in the context of a US nuclear presence in Europe.
The Labour party has promised to intensify defence cooperation with Europe, including a commitment by the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, to reach an agreement with Germany within the first six months of taking office. But this modest pledge had nothing to do with the sharing of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
UK could contribute to nuclear shield if Trump wins, suggests German minister
Comments draw Britain into debate about European security without US providing bulk of Nato’s nuclear deterrent
The UK could contribute to a new European nuclear shield if Donald Trumpbecomes US president again, a senior German minister has suggested, drawing British politicians into the debate about how Europe’s security could be bolstered in the event of the Republican frontrunner winning in November.….
On Tuesday, Christian Lindner, the German finance minister and the leader of the Free Democratic party, called on politicians to consider an alternative model that could include British and French nuclear weapons.
In an article for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he wrote: “The strategic nuclear forces of France and Great Britain are already making a contribution to the security of our alliance. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made various offers of cooperation. We should understand Donald Trump’s recent statements as a call to further rethink this element of European security under the umbrella of Nato.
“The question is: under what political and financial conditions would Paris and London be prepared to maintain or expand their own strategic capabilities for collective security? And vice versa, what contribution are we willing to make? When it comes to peace and freedom in Europe, we must not shy away from these difficult questions.”…..
Manfred Weber, the German conservative who heads the centre-right European People’s party (EPP) grouping in the European parliament, has thrown his weight behind the debate. He said he did not rule out a European nuclear umbrella and called for “a new chapter” to be opened with London.
“Macron has already made a vague offer to talk about the importance of the French nuclear forces for Europe,” Weber said. “Now that Donald Trump is openly questioning the role of the USA as a protective power would be the right moment for this. The same applies to the British, with whom we should finally start a new chapter of cooperation after Brexit.”….
The UK has said its nuclear weapons would be available for use at the request of Nato’s supreme allied commander Europe, the alliance’s most senior uniformed officer, and that they would only be used “in extreme circumstances of self-defence including the defence of our Nato allies”.
This offer, however, was made in the context of a US nuclear presence in Europe.
The Labour party has promised to intensify defence cooperation with Europe, including a commitment by the shadow defence secretary, John Healey, to reach an agreement with Germany within the first six months of taking office. But this modest pledge had nothing to do with the sharing of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beyond the "war on 2% and what is included", it's more important to realize "for what" the military spendings are intended. Where the US strives for supremacy around the world, the other Nato countries (it's in its name) have the intention for trans-Atlantic support. As such, divide the US military spending by 3 or so, to get the Nato contribution itself. Of course, we have spin-offs, reallocating, etc, though still, the "other members" % contribution is largely "inline", if not better than the US one, with the 2% target, available for Nato purposes.
Whenever Trump comes up with "something", be aware, that it's just wrong, out of context, etc. Lying without statistics......
Whenever Trump comes up with "something", be aware, that it's just wrong, out of context, etc. Lying without statistics......
"Whenever Trump comes up with "something", be aware, …"
A concern about the Trump statement is that either he did not understand the background of NATO, particularly article 5; a view supported by comments made by other senior US law makers - they appeared not to know either.
Or alternatively it was deliberate; a threat to NATO members and its partnership necessary for mutual defence.
The first instance would question an individuals knowledge, recall or application, critical qualities for a national leader.
The second, similar but more serious, by the apparent deliberation of the challenge - how close to the line can we go. Such a position could be against national or international law. How is an individual to be judged; someone who incites an attack on an alliance of which your country is a member, an attack on one is an attack on all, where the statement effectively encourages an attack on the homeland.
How would the US government view another national leader doing similar, inciting an attack on NATO, as an attack the US.
Whichever, the statement does not aid the collective stance required for peace management or conflict resolution between NATO and Russia.
A concern about the Trump statement is that either he did not understand the background of NATO, particularly article 5; a view supported by comments made by other senior US law makers - they appeared not to know either.
Or alternatively it was deliberate; a threat to NATO members and its partnership necessary for mutual defence.
The first instance would question an individuals knowledge, recall or application, critical qualities for a national leader.
The second, similar but more serious, by the apparent deliberation of the challenge - how close to the line can we go. Such a position could be against national or international law. How is an individual to be judged; someone who incites an attack on an alliance of which your country is a member, an attack on one is an attack on all, where the statement effectively encourages an attack on the homeland.
How would the US government view another national leader doing similar, inciting an attack on NATO, as an attack the US.
Whichever, the statement does not aid the collective stance required for peace management or conflict resolution between NATO and Russia.
"Whenever Trump comes up with "something", be aware, …"
A concern about the Trump statement is that either he did not understand the background of NATO, particularly article 5; a view supported by comments made by other senior US law makers - they appeared not to know either.
Or alternatively it was deliberate; a threat to NATO members and its partnership necessary for mutual defence.
The first instance would question an individuals knowledge, recall or application, critical qualities for a national leader.
The second, similar but more serious, by the apparent deliberation of the challenge - how close to the line can we go. Such a position could be against national or international law. How is an individual to be judged; someone who incites an attack on an alliance of which your country is a member, an attack on one is an attack on all, where the statement effectively encourages an attack on the homeland.
How would the US government view another national leader doing similar, inciting an attack on NATO, as an attack the US.
Whichever, the statement does not aid the collective stance required for peace management or conflict resolution between NATO and Russia.
A concern about the Trump statement is that either he did not understand the background of NATO, particularly article 5; a view supported by comments made by other senior US law makers - they appeared not to know either.
Or alternatively it was deliberate; a threat to NATO members and its partnership necessary for mutual defence.
The first instance would question an individuals knowledge, recall or application, critical qualities for a national leader.
The second, similar but more serious, by the apparent deliberation of the challenge - how close to the line can we go. Such a position could be against national or international law. How is an individual to be judged; someone who incites an attack on an alliance of which your country is a member, an attack on one is an attack on all, where the statement effectively encourages an attack on the homeland.
How would the US government view another national leader doing similar, inciting an attack on NATO, as an attack the US.
Whichever, the statement does not aid the collective stance required for peace management or conflict resolution between NATO and Russia.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 476
Received 304 Likes
on
140 Posts
Considering that Russia would "like Alaska back please" I think the residents of that state should be paying very close attention to current events
After all, it's not even connected to the lower 48
After all, it's not even connected to the lower 48