U.S.-Russia relations

[TheReal_ND]

https://youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu ... AUlDFt4m30

Russian special forces in Syria.

SUBTITLES) 11 Dec 2016 Syria.
Our special forces have to fight terrorism not only neighbors, but also on the distant approaches. So, killing bandits in Syria, we protect them from Russia.

[ssu]

Interesting to notice just how many female defence ministers there have been altogether in countries:

USSR & RUSSIA: 0
USA: 0
ISRAEL: 0
UK: 0
POLAND: 0
ESTONIA: 0
CANADA: 1
GERMANY: 1
FRANCE: 1
NETHERLANDS: 1
ITALY: 1
DENMARK: 1
LATVIA: 1
FINLAND: 2
SPAIN: 2
SWEDEN: 4
NORWAY: 6

In Norway it seems nearly a quota position.

(BTW. Wanna bet Mattis will never wear uniform when Secretary of Defence? Not going to...)

[TheReal_ND]

Yeah I hope he does though. Are any of these women hawkish or at least not cucks? I know Marine Le Pen is the type of woman leader I could get behind but these women.... idk. Seems kind of weird that Europe is being so unmarshal.

[Dand]

Today we got an extra strong dose of "We've always been at war with Eurasia"


I do believe and understand that Russia and China are our rivals (or even more) but they are both just being used as boogeymen by Obama. Using their names interchangeably is great evidence for this. You cannot misread "Russia" as "China" and he is visibly reading off of notes. Earnest (Obama's mouthpiece) doesn't even distinguish between the two countries.

[Smitty-48]

Norway is not unmartial, they have universal conscription, the Norwegian defense minister ain't bad neither, she's a right wing Norwegian, Conservative Party; individual rights, tax cuts, pro private sector, law and order agenda, stricter rules on immigration, etcetera, as far as Europeans go, she's your kind of girl, nuke.

[TheReal_ND]

Norway is not unmartial, they have universal conscription, the Norwegian defense minister ain't bad neither, she's a right wing Norwegian, Conservative Party; individual rights, tax cuts, pro private sector , law and order agenda, stricter rules on immigration, etcetera, as far as Europeans go, she's your kind of girl, nuke.

Well that's why I thought I'd ask. Yeah Norway seems pretty based tbh.

[TheReal_ND]

Today we got an extra strong dose of "We've always been at war with Eurasia"


I do believe and understand that Russia and China are our rivals (or even more) but they are both just being used as boogeymen by Obama. Using their names interchangeably is great evidence for this. You cannot misread "Russia" as "China" and he is visibly reading off of notes. Earnest (Obama's mouthpiece) doesn't even distinguish between the two countries.

Jesus Christ dude. They can't even find someone that's able to lie with a straight face?

[Montegriffo]

Yeah I hope he does though. Are any of these women hawkish or at least not cucks? I know Marine Le Pen is the type of woman leader I could get behind but these women.... idk. Seems kind of weird that Europe is being so unmarshal.

Only one reason to get behind Le Pen in my opinion and it involves her bending over.

[ssu]

Are any of these women hawkish or at least not cucks? I know Marine Le Pen is the type of woman leader I could get behind but these women.... idk. Seems kind of weird that Europe is being so unmarshal.

Likely they aren't so hawkish, but just like Maggie, never assume that all women wouldn't be hawks. It depends actually what the role of the defence minister is. Defence ministers usually can be a far more "managerial" position with a hands off approach with the military they are supervising. With Great Powers, the role is much more active.

Think about it nuke, if your are the Commanding general of the Armed Forces of some nation, which is it better from your perspective: to have a clueless woman that knows she's totally clueless in military matters or some guy that messes things up?

But in reality I think it is what it looks like: The position of the defence minister isn't viewed to be very important, hence it is used as a place to fill the female quota. There's a valid point in that the defence minister ought to be a civilian, and hence there would be civilian control over the military, but still the best defence minister ought to know what the military is about.

We have had two female defence ministers: the first one was good, put a lot of focus in the military and had the right spirit. The other one was totally clueless and absolutely lost as a defence minister, one of the worst. She had been a social worker before turning into a career politician. Tells it all. We have now a politician 46-year old reserve lieutenant who was a military historian, a docent of military history in the Finnish National Defence University and previously the chairman of the defence committee in the Parliament. I think he's definately one of the best there has been ever.



Yet I think Mattis will be a good defence minister... or at least the prospects are very good. Because in the end it comes down to just how functional the Trump administration in general will be.

[Otern]

Are any of these women hawkish or at least not cucks? I know Marine Le Pen is the type of woman leader I could get behind but these women.... idk. Seems kind of weird that Europe is being so unmarshal.

Likely they aren't so hawkish, but just like Maggie, never assume that all women wouldn't be hawks. It depends actually what the role of the defence minister is. Defence ministers usually can be a far more "managerial" position with a hands off approach with the military they are supervising. With Great Powers, the role is much more active.

Think about it nuke, if your are the Commanding general of the Armed Forces of some nation, which is it better from your perspective: to have a clueless woman that knows she's totally clueless in military matters or some guy that messes things up?

But in reality I think it is what it looks like: The position of the defence minister isn't viewed to be very important, hence it is used as a place to fill the female quota. There's a valid point in that the defence minister ought to be a civilian, and hence there would be civilian control over the military, but still the best defence minister ought to know what the military is about.

We have had two female defence ministers: the first one was good, put a lot of focus in the military and had the right spirit. The other one was totally clueless and absolutely lost as a defence minister, one of the worst. She had been a social worker before turning into a career politician. Tells it all. We have now a politician 46-year old reserve lieutenant who was a military historian, a docent of military history in the Finnish National Defence University and previously the chairman of the defence committee in the Parliament. I think he's definately one of the best there has been ever.



Yet I think Mattis will be a good defence minister... or at least the prospects are very good. Because in the end it comes down to just how functional the Trump administration in general will be.

Good points.

I think it's a good thing to have a defense minister with only civilian experience, at least for the small countries. But they've got to at least have some historical knowledge.

The one's we've had lately have all been puppets for US foreign policy, mixed in with radical feminism. As a result, we have an extremely expensive, yet small army. The Home Guard is almost entirely dismantled, most people really aren't conscripted anymore, and when they're conscripted, most of them won't receive enough training to really be considered a fighting force.

We upgrade old stuff, only to scrap it before it reenters service, then buy new stuff, which we then scrap because it doesn't fit with whatever the new idea for the armed forces is. Land and facilities is sold off to some private investors dirt cheap.

End result; the most F-35s per capita, but they're guarded by a small group of 19-year olds of varying motivation, and with generally insufficient training.

We really should just go full professional, or turn conscription into something like Finland. Because now, too many who want join the armed forces can't, and too many who want to treat it like their year off, can. A professional force would mean only the really motivated, and fittest people would join, and they'd get enough training, resulting in a small, but efficient force. While going back to actually conscripting most of the men would have its benefits in size. Now it's just too small, and too unprofessional to matter in anything except following Uncle Sam on his adventures abroad.