NATO's 2% goal

[Smitty-48]

China ain't much of a threat, they're big, but not mobile, China couldn't take Taiwan, never mind take a drink from the Mississippi.

[Speaker to Animals]

China is a giant Potemkin village.

[Smitty-48]

The problem with explaining to the American public why NATO is obsolete, is that most Americans didn't really understand what the opposing war plans were in the first place, so they don't get how it has all changed, so when the Pentagon says Suwalki Gap, the public doesn't get how that is different from the Fulda Gap, because even tho they heard the term all the time, the public never really understood how that Fulda Gap thing worked.

[Montegriffo]

My experiences serving with French units.

How many deployments have you been on with the French military?

Dude, I've got a house in France. It is the foreign country I've spent the most time in and visited the most times. French people live in England in large numbers.
Some French people might find your politics unpalatable at times but they are never siding with Russia over America.
Paranoid nonsense.

So the Englishmen who hates America owns a house in France and takes exception with the obvious observation that French generally hate and resent America. Surprise, surprise.

I don't hate America.
I'm grateful for my Leatherman every day.
My second favourite car is a Cord.
I love jazz and blues.
The Dead Kennedy's were the second best punk band of all time.
No one played the guitar like Jimi.
I talk to Americans every day.
Some of my favourite people are American.
America invented hold 'em.

[Speaker to Animals]

LOL, of course you do, Monty. You are not fooling anybody.

[BjornP]

Part of the pathetic victimhood culture infecting America these days, is that so many of them want to be hated. They want it so bad, they need to inject "hate" into. Every. Single. Fucking. Thing.

StA, the data backs up Monte's point. Do the damn research instead of acting the drama queen about being "hated" about yet another thing.
....

As for OP topic: I've heard that point made alot. Whether two percent of gdp is enough, obviously depends on the nature and scope of the threat(s). Russia could, probably fairly easily, take the Baltics... but why? The need for Baltic naval yards are supposedly covered by an expansion of the St. Petersburg yards, and without a large and occupation, how would they keep the Baltic?
The way analysts here are saying Russian foreign policy works atm, is about restoring power and prestige by appearing as the sort of threat they once were.

If so, I wonder if US/NATO "provoking" Russia, really helps it regain some of its former prestige and pride. Because they feel they're taken seriously again?

Anyway. Welcome back Smitty an Capps.

[Smitty-48]

Scenario one;

EU/NATO countries continue to expand their lethal support to Ukraine.

The Ukrainians launch an all out offensive against the DPR.

The Russians intervene and drive the Ukrainians back towards the Dnepr.

Poland & Co enters Ukraine to reinforce.

1st Guards Tank Army moves to their startline in Belarus.

NATO counters by reinforcing in the Baltic.

Russia takes the Suwalki Gap to protect Kaliningrad then invokes nuclear deescalation to force NATO to sue for peace.

[Otern]

France hates us more than the Russians anyway.

Where did you get that from?
Clearly nonsense.

Well, the French hate everybody. It makes sense they hate the Americans more, since they're more likely to meet an American than a Russian. But most of all, they hate each other. People just need to get over it, French people will hate you, but it doesn't mean he's your enemy. They're a bunch of wonderful, hateful people.

[Otern]

As for OP topic: I've heard that point made alot. Whether two percent of gdp is enough, obviously depends on the nature and scope of the threat(s). Russia could, probably fairly easily, take the Baltics... but why? The need for Baltic naval yards are supposedly covered by an expansion of the St. Petersburg yards, and without a large and occupation, how would they keep the Baltic?
The way analysts here are saying Russian foreign policy works atm, is about restoring power and prestige by appearing as the sort of threat they once were.

If so, I wonder if US/NATO "provoking" Russia, really helps it regain some of its former prestige and pride. Because they feel they're taken seriously again?

Anyway. Welcome back Smitty an Capps.

Yes, it depends on the nature and scope of the threats. And in my opinion, Russia and China is not enough of a threat for NATO to increase its spending. There could be a debate whether it's a good idea to decrease it, but let's just focus on the push for increasing at this moment.

There's no sane person in NATO advocating going to an aggressive war against Russia and/or China. So it makes sense to have a defense alliance focused on defense. But it's really starting to look like we're either going to attack them in the future, or we're under total control of the defense industry. US defense spending is in another league of itself, more than Russia, China and the rest of NATO combined.

I really think the largest threats to NATO, and the US, is not Russia and/or China, but internal troubles. The middle class getting smaller, the loss of jobs, lack of opportunities, and general waste in government where the people get very little in return. And this is not solved by increasing military spending, at least not when we're already outspending our potential enemies by an already insane margin.

Russia is a paper tiger in all military aspects except nuclear capabilities. They got their shit shoved in in Georgia, and started building down their conventional forces as a result. Even going for a full scale invasion of Ukraine in 2014, was too much of a risk for them. A Polish-Baltic alliance would probably be enough to deter them. And NATO, even though the hawks keep saying "it's not enough", is so vastly superior to Russia, that they wouldn't lose a conventional war against Russia. And the Russians know it.

We could've spent that money better. Investing in thorium development, infrastructure, education, health care and lots of other stuff. Or just decrease the taxes, and let people spend their extra money as they'd like. The Russians aren't going through the Fulda gap anytime soon. And China is not going to spread communism through Asia. We're just wasting money, and losing the economical war by still clinging to the Cold War.

[Smitty-48]

I think the Russians are appropriately risk averse, but push has simply not come to shove, declining to launch an all out war against Ukraine because it is not necessary, and incapable of launching because they are a paper tiger, is not the same thing.

The Russians could drive the Ukrainians back to the Dnepr at least, just with airpower alone, could take Moldova and Odessa too, and the Baltics, and the South Caucuses, it's simply not worth the cost at this juncture, because the Siloviki in the Kremlim are not threatened, as nobody is trying to overthrow them.

They've fixed a lot since Georgia, and contrary to "shit shoved in", even with all the problems they had in Georgia, they still rolled over Georgia like it was a speed bump, which is why Powell told the Georgians to sue for peace before the Russian tanks rolled into Tblisi

And the nuclear weapons are an exponential force multiplier to the conventional, because it very much limits what you can do to them if they do roll, you don't have a bomb them into the stone age option, NATO will be the ones who were risk averse if Ivan makes his move.

Ivan is not gonna make his move until he has nothing to lose, but that will make him the most dangerous of all.