NATO's 2% goal

[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The problem with explaining to the American public why NATO is obsolete, is that most Americans didn't really understand what the opposing war plans were in the first place, so they don't get how it has all changed, so when the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.

What is the Suwalki gap? Know what the Fulda gap is, just don't remember hearing about that.

The Suwalki Gap is the gap between Belarus and Kaliningrad along the Polish border.

[Smitty-48]

The key difference being that the Fulda Gap was the valley to Frankfurt.

If the Soviets could overrun Frankfurt, they could block REFORGER, and so take Western Europe.

Whereas if the Russians hit the Sulwalki Gap, at worst its a war between Russia and Poland.

[Smitty-48]

But again, this Kremlin now is not interested in taking Western Europe.

The Kremlin is defensive now.

It's more about the Baltic Sea to them.

So instead of going Blitzkrieg on Poland, more likely its a defense of the Eastern Baltic manuever,

Screen the Sulwalki Gap and take the Baltics, then invoke nuclear deescalation.

Then just drive the Balts into NATO territory, and replace them with ethnic Russians, like Crimea on steroids.

[clubgop]

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.
....

Dont know about any data but from my own experience France is alright with us. They don't act like it but they yearn for our attention. It's a lot like High School, France is the hot senior, who has been dotted on and lust after by everyone else. The US is the varsity Starting QB as a freshman. The relationship ain't ever going anywhere but can you at least act like your slightly smitten. Learning the language goes a long way.

[clubgop]

The key difference being that the Fulda Gap was the valley to Frankfurt.

If the Soviets could overrun Frankfurt, they could block REFORGER, and so take Western Europe.

Whereas if the Russians hit the Sulwalki Gap, at worst its a war between Russia and Poland.

So, it is literally moving the goalpost. Cool. Was well aware of the Fulda Gap.

[Smitty-48]

The key difference being that the Fulda Gap was the valley to Frankfurt.

If the Soviets could overrun Frankfurt, they could block REFORGER, and so take Western Europe.

Whereas if the Russians hit the Sulwalki Gap, at worst its a war between Russia and Poland.

So, it is literally moving the goalpost. Cool. Was well aware of the Fulda Gap.

Indeed, nothing like the Soviet threat, because there's no way for Russia to prevent reinforcements, it's still a Cold War, but it's no existential threat to America per se, how far beyond Poland could the Russians get or would even try to go?

[Otern]

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.

Yeah, I agree. Paper tiger was a bit of an exaggeration. But the way Russia is portrayed today, as a power comparable to the Soviet Union, is pretty much a lie. And it's an expensive lie.
They could take a non-NATO aligned Baltics, but there's very little for them to gain there, so there's really no reason to do so. They have more obtainable goals in Eastern Europe anyway.

What they did after Georgia, also seems to have passed most western politician's minds. The reforms after 2008 have been largely successful, and can explain a lot of the reasons why Russia didn't go all out against Ukraine in 2014. By reducing a lot of the conscription, and gradually turning their armed forces into a smaller, and more professional force, they've managed to cut costs considerably. They had to do this, or else their economy would be even further down the gutter than it is today. The reforms are still ongoing though, but the tendency have been to move away from a lot of the Soviet methodology, and move towards a new doctrine, more suited to Russia's limited conventional force projection.
Georgia did more than anything else, show the Russians that they had to change the way they organized their armed forces. The Georgians never really stood a chance, but they almost managed to inflict enough casualties in the Russians near those tunnels that it could have internal political consequences.

BTW, glad you're posting again.

[Otern]

Norway's off the hook for now, but Denmark has been mooching off us for years. They didn't even bring guns to Afghanistan (due to a Danish law saying that firearms cannot be used against muslims due to fear of rioting and respect for the Prophet) and their MRE's were apparently just some nasty pickled sardines with some dry ass cookies. I think Denmark should have to pay 4%+payback all that money we spent on you in WW2. Let's call it 1 trillion. The alternative is the US will destabilize another mid-east country and send another wave of refugees your way. Its up to you.

No. Denmark have been one of the more supportive NATO members. In a different way than Norway, but there's no doubt Denmark has been one of the best smaller nations when it comes to supporting all the adventures abroad. They did bring guns to Afghanistan. And they're not afraid to insult the muslims. Remember the whole caricature debate years ago. Denmark pretty much stood their ground, while most of the anglosphere tried to distance themselves from them, to not insult the muslims.

Denmark have had one of the largest casualty rates of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, due to them sending their troops to the most dangerous regions, and pretty much all they sent were combat troops.

There's a reason NATO's general secretary from 2009 to 2014 was their prime minister from 2001 to 2009. The Danes absolutely pulled their weight in that war.

[heydaralon]

Norway's off the hook for now, but Denmark has been mooching off us for years. They didn't even bring guns to Afghanistan (due to a Danish law saying that firearms cannot be used against muslims due to fear of rioting and respect for the Prophet) and their MRE's were apparently just some nasty pickled sardines with some dry ass cookies. I think Denmark should have to pay 4%+payback all that money we spent on you in WW2. Let's call it 1 trillion. The alternative is the US will destabilize another mid-east country and send another wave of refugees your way. Its up to you.

No. Denmark have been one of the more supportive NATO members. In a different way than Norway, but there's no doubt Denmark has been one of the best smaller nations when it comes to supporting all the adventures abroad. They did bring guns to Afghanistan. And they're not afraid to insult the muslims. Remember the whole caricature debate years ago. Denmark pretty much stood their ground, while most of the anglosphere tried to distance themselves from them, to not insult the muslims.

Denmark have had one of the largest casualty rates of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, due to them sending their troops to the most dangerous regions, and pretty much all they sent were combat troops.

There's a reason NATO's general secretary from 2009 to 2014 was their prime minister from 2001 to 2009. The Danes absolutely pulled their weight in that war.

Dude they don't even have a single f35 or a nuke sub. What could they even defend? A Dunkin Donuts cash register? I'm sorry, but I just don't feel safe with Denmark. They could be overrun at any minute.

[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.
....

Dont know about any data but from my own experience France is alright with us. They don't act like it but they yearn for our attention. It's a lot like High School, France is the hot senior, who has been dotted on and lust after by everyone else. The US is the varsity Starting QB as a freshman. The relationship ain't ever going anywhere but can you at least act like your slightly smitten. Learning the language goes a long way.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -9-charts/

Of those countries surveyed, France and Canada have close to the same degree of favorable opinion of the US. Germany, otoh, like you even less than Mexico, with only Russia liking you less.