International [NATO News] What Sweden brings to NATO as its Newest Member

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Trump is an isolationist. He sees no profit in spending money on the Pax Americana.

Increased isolationism makes a lot of sense for the US right now. We have a country so polarized that every overseas military action is supported or rejected on a partisan basis alone. That's a piss poor way of handling ourselves internationally. Until internal tensions ease off, we'd be very smart to avoid military involvement in foreign conflicts.

NATO has outlived its usefulness. The Europeans clearly don't care about it. I think the US should strengthen defense ties with Britain, and perhaps a few of the stouter Eastern European states, and let the rest of the Continent be.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Or just have Russia do it, and just have the US try to take credit, like in WWII.

The Russians fought well in the Second World War and shouldered the burden of most of the fighting. However, without US aid, the eastern front would have been a stalemate. The US deserves a shit ton of credit for their efforts in Europe during the Second World War.

 

[Squarechoke]

The Russians fought well in the Second World War and shouldered the burden of most of the fighting. However, without US aid, the eastern front would have been a stalemate. The US deserves a shit ton of credit for their efforts in Europe during the Second World War.

That depends to whom which you're listening. Listening to the Russians the lend-lease deal provided a minor part of their amount of tanks and weren't the best ones either. They don't think it changed the outcome.

 

[KnightTemplar]

You have to understand the political situation Germany is in. I don't think you realize how controversial the Bundeswehr or specially German soldiers in foreign conflicts are in older generations.
A large percentage of Germans certainly had an issue with spending the money during the cold war. You need to check the "friedensbewegungen" from the 1980's in Germany.
It was just simply needed due to the cold war. As soon as the cold war ended Germany did something called "Friedensdividende".
After the cold war you also had 1/3 of the population that lived under foreign occupation. East Germans are even more against military spending compared to the West.

We did not rebuilt our military for years. We were a pawn for the Americans to be used as the first line of defense. That is why we have all those issues right now (besides the funding).
Because we did not rebuilt our military the way it would have been necessary with a strong Navy and airforce. We were basically a defensive Tank Army.
We need a Military that can stand on its own. We are the 4th richest country in the world we should have the 4th strongest millitray.
That what would be a rebuilding of the Military not lots of Tanks trying to hold a Soviet invasion at the Rhine before the Americans arrive.



No not solely because of the Fuhrer's legacy. But it is certainly part of it. No excuses from me I think we should pay the 2% I am just trying to offer reason why we don't.
The Bundeswehr was never proud. Because it is not based on German Military history.
But yeah I agree with your main point Germany is choosing not to pay it. But that has many reasons including the history.

At least some of the Bundeswehr soldiers themselves can see the funny side. German soldiers who did tours in Afghanistan wore t-shirts that showed the insignia of one of the Waffen SS Panzer regiments, underneath which was written,

Grandfather never made it this far East.

And they say Germans lack a sense of humour...

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

That depends to whom which you're listening. Listening to the Russians the lend-lease deal provided a minor part of their amount of tanks and weren't the best ones either. They don't think it changed the outcome.

Russian tanks were superior to US for most purposes. Tanks, however, were not at all the most important military good supplied to the USSR by the USA. The Studebaker US6 and other such logistical trucks had a very large impact on the mobility of Russian units and the ability to maintain stretched supply lines during offensives.

I'm not trying to take away from the Russians. They did the bulk of the work and shed by far the most blood. But without US and UK aid they stood very little chance of defeating Germany on their own, although I think they probably would not have been defeated by the Germans either.

Denigrating the efforts of the US, UK, or USSR in Europe in the Second World War is ignorant.

 

[Squarechoke]

Russian tanks were superior to US for most purposes. Tanks, however, were not at all the most important military good supplied to the USSR by the USA. The Studebaker US6 and other such logistical trucks had a very large impact on the mobility of Russian units and the ability to maintain stretched supply lines during offensives.

I'm not trying to take away from the Russians. They did the bulk of the work and shed by far the most blood. But without US and UK aid they stood very little chance of defeating Germany on their own, although I think they probably would not have been defeated by the Germans either.

Denigrating the efforts of the US, UK, or USSR in Europe in the Second World War is ignorant.

I took one example, but that's the common stance I've heard from Russia. I'm not saying that they didn't offer valuable help. My point was really about who made the largest impact and who takes the most credit. The Russians did the most in turning the tide but I don't hear remotely as many voices coming from there talking to others about it, as I do from the US with people saying "we saved you".

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

I took one example, but that's the common stance I've heard from Russia. I'm not saying that they didn't offer valuable help. My point was really about who made the largest impact and who takes the most credit. The Russians did the most in turning the tide but I don't hear remotely as many voices coming from there talking to others about it, as I do from the US with people saying "we saved you".

I'm sure part of that difference is that the Soviets had no choice but to fight for survival. Other than shipping in the Caribbean and the eastern seaboard, the US was not immediately threatened by the Axis Powers in Europe. So when the decision was made to fight, and even to focus on Europe rather then the Pacific, was seen by the public as somewhat altruistic. Maybe a different way to put it would be, "We didn't have to go to such lengths to help you win that war."

I understand that a lot of time has passed, and I do not expect feelings over that war to guide either Americans or Europeans in 2017. But historically speaking, many European states showed the US a lot of gratitude for their efforts, and for good reason.

And let's be honest. It isn't as if the Second World War was the first time the US had ever decisively intervened in a European conflict on the more liberal and democratic side. In the First World War, like the Second, others did the bulk of the fighting. In this case, the French and the Russians, followed by the Brits. And yet it is very likely that without US intervention, the Western Front would have collapsed in 1918. The US gained little from that war, and immediately afterwards retreated back into isolationism.

The idea that the US has often saved the European bacon has some merit to it.

 

[Squarechoke]

I'm sure part of that difference is that the Soviets had no choice but to fight for survival. Other than shipping in the Caribbean and the eastern seaboard, the US was not immediately threatened by the Axis Powers in Europe. So when the decision was made to fight, and even to focus on Europe rather then the Pacific, was seen by the public as somewhat altruistic. Maybe a different way to put it would be, "We didn't have to go to such lengths to help you win that war."

The vast majority of sources I've studied draw the conclusion that the US involvement sped up the conclusion, but didn't change the outcome of the war. Of course that's still valuable and commendable though, but it was in their interest to keep their allies in Europe strong after the war as well. So in short, the US did a good thing to help Europe, but the specific people that just go "we saved your asses" don't seem to really know what they are talking about.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The vast majority of sources I've studied draw the conclusion that the US involvement sped up the conclusion, but didn't change the outcome of the war. Of course that's still valuable and commendable though, but it was in their interest to keep their allies in Europe strong after the war as well. So in short, the US did a good thing to help Europe, but the specific people that just go "we saved your asses" don't seem to really know what they are talking about.

This is an interesting discussion. It is entirely possible that the Russians would have defeated Germany without US help. I strongly doubt it. I think the Russians would have bogged down on the eastern front in 1943. They would have gotten the better of the slogging match perhaps, but without trucks and boots and food from the US, they wouldn't have gone very far. I imagine they'd have retaken the Baltic states and probably Poland, but I don't think any offensive further than that would have broken down, much as the German offensive to Moscow broke down. This is particularly true given that so much of the Luftwaffe was deployed in the West to counter US bombing raids. Moving those squadrons east wouldn't mean the defeat of Russia, but it would certainly have blunted Russian offensives.

Of course, if I'm wrong and the USSR juggernaut plowed through eastern and central Europe nonetheless, the Soviet Bloc would have included France and Holland and Denmark. A thread about NATO would be remiss in not pointing out that the military occupation of half of Europe by the USSR was the driving force behind the treaty organization that included most of the other half.

All things considered, I think it remains quite accurate to say that the US did indeed save your asses.

 

[Arkain2K]

Or just have Russia do it, and just have the US try to take credit, like in WWII.

Thread-derailment bait detected.

I'm reasonably sure there are plenty of World War II discussion threads in this joint for you to contribute to, if that's the topic you're interested in.

This round-table, however, shall remain focused on the latest news developments regarding NATO spendings.

 

[GhostZ06]

Russian tanks were superior to US for most purposes. Tanks, however, were not at all the most important military good supplied to the USSR by the USA. The Studebaker US6 and other such logistical trucks had a very large impact on the mobility of Russian units and the ability to maintain stretched supply lines during offensives.

I'm not trying to take away from the Russians. They did the bulk of the work and shed by far the most blood. But without US and UK aid they stood very little chance of defeating Germany on their own, although I think they probably would not have been defeated by the Germans either.

Denigrating the efforts of the US, UK, or USSR in Europe in the Second World War is ignorant.

um not towards the end of the war... the m26 perishing was superior to the T-34, not to mention the super perishing an the the British were getting Centurion and the Torotis. Also air power wise, the british and americans forces were fielding p-80s and meteors in Europe. Not calling you one inga, but i really love it when soviet fangirls talks

 

[Squarechoke]

This is an interesting discussion. It is entirely possible that the Russians would have defeated Germany without US help. I strongly doubt it. I think the Russians would have bogged down on the eastern front in 1943. They would have gotten the better of the slogging match perhaps, but without trucks and boots and food from the US, they wouldn't have gone very far. I imagine they'd have retaken the Baltic states and probably Poland, but I don't think any offensive further than that would have broken down, much as the German offensive to Moscow broke down. This is particularly true given that so much of the Luftwaffe was deployed in the West to counter US bombing raids. Moving those squadrons east wouldn't mean the defeat of Russia, but it would certainly have blunted Russian offensives.

Of course, if I'm wrong and the USSR juggernaut plowed through eastern and central Europe nonetheless, the Soviet Bloc would have included France and Holland and Denmark. A thread about NATO would be remiss in not pointing out that the military occupation of half of Europe by the USSR was the driving force behind the treaty organization that included most of the other half.

All things considered, I think it remains quite accurate to say that the US did indeed save your asses.

The USSR had already showed that they could beat Germany without any allied aid at all in 41, and by the time US aid came to them they had several key victories. The bulk of the US aid didn't reach them until 44-45. The Battle of Kursk in 43 was the last time the Germans were really on the offensive on the eastern front, after that it was really a constant retreat. It would be tougher without the US aid but I see nothing that the Germans would do to turn that tide. 80% of the German casualties were on that front. It would have taken a few years more, but the USSR would most likely have defeated Germany in my view.

The British would not have had enough resources to last without the US aid though. As you say the map would have been quite different if the USSR won alone though, so that's one of the reasons that staying out wasn't a relevant option for the US.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

The USSR had already showed that they could beat Germany without any allied aid at all in 41

They had shown no such thing by 1941. What they had shown was that they were not yet beaten, which is not at all the same thing as having won. Not every war ends with one side victorious and the other vanquished. Without US aid, Russian troops marching through Berlin would be unlikely. A much more likely outcome in such an eventuality would be a stalemate somewhere around Poland's eastern border.

 

[Squarechoke]

They had shown no such thing by 1941. What they had shown was that they were not yet beaten, which is not at all the same thing as having won. Not every war ends with one side victorious and the other vanquished. Without US aid, Russian troops marching through Berlin would be unlikely. A much more likely outcome in such an eventuality would be a stalemate somewhere around Poland's eastern border.

Won significant battles of course, not the war. I thought that would be obvious from the context of that the discussion is about if they could end the war, plus that I wrote that the Germans didn't go on consistent retreat until 43. We'll have to agree to disagree then, since the sources I've read all point to that there's good possibility that the USSR would beat Germany in the long run. I neither have the time nor the inclination to go into the finer details at this moment, so a disagreement is fine as a result here for me.

 

[Arkain2K]

@Madmick: Could you do us a favor and move all the "Russia in World War II" thread-derailment on this page over to the "World War II MVP" discussion thread? Thanks!

http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/ww2-mvp.2757439/

 

[panamaican]

During the two leaders' talks, Merkel had already reiterated her government's commitment to increasing military spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), a target NATO member states formally agreed in 2014 to reach within 10 years.

If I read that right, they have till 2024 to reach the target? I don't think I knew that before. Changes my opinion on the people underperforming. If they have 7 more years to get there then can I complain this early on?

 

[Arkain2K]

If I read that right, they have till 2024 to reach the target? I don't think I knew that before. Changes my opinion on the people underperforming. If they have 7 more years to get there then can I complain this early on?

It went something like this:

At the 2006 NATO summit, all members of the alliance unanimously pledged to "commit a minimum of 2 percent of their GDP to spending on defense."

This agreement was made in good faith with no hard deadlines, base on the understanding that the little guys in the East with less money to spend would probably need more time to reach that target than the wealthy world powers with deep pockets and high-tech armies the West.

The U.S, U.K, Greece, little Poland, and tiny Estonia quickly fulfilled that pledge.

Everyone else in the club just plods along in the 8 years following that summit. Defense spending were set as low as they can just to keep their armies on life support, with no intention to ever reach that minimum commitment. Because there's always that other guy who will pick up the heavy lifting.

As the result, there's no shortage of news headlines about Allies military equipment breaking down, or comedic episodes like troops being sent to peace-keeping operations in the sand-blasted Middle East with jungle-green camo.

In 2014, this unacceptable "progress" was one of the main agendas at that year's NATO summit, and a hard deadline was set this time for all the laggards: 2024.


Here's the latest updates on our most trusted NATO allies:

- All of the current contenders for France's Presidential office say they want France's defense spending (currently 1.79%) to reach at least 2% on their watch. Half of the pack actually want to boost it to 3%. I think we will actually see it happens in a few years.

- Germany is increasing their military spending , albeit at a glacial rate. It is my personal opinion that they're dragging it out for as long as they could, and will probably reach that minimum target right before the 2024 ultimatum, nearly two decades after the 2006 Summit.

- Harper did some good things to get the Canadian military back on their feet again (they even have desert-theme camo now), and it looked promising for a while there, but Trudeau pretty much abandoned that pledge all together when he took office. I do not think NATO should realistically exepects anything more than the current 1% from Canada.

- The U.K's defense spending had consistently exceeding 2% for decades, even before the 206 Summit. But after multiple rounds of absolutely-brutal budget cuts in recent years (that pretty much destroyed the Royal Navy), the British Ministry of Defence is now accused by independent defense analysts of cooking the books with "creative accounting" to reach that target. If you take out the questionable stuff, they're at 1.98%.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Trump is not even elected yet and getting stuff done!

Look how dumb this post is given 6 months. Also notice the cabal Of morons who gave it a like

 

[panamaican]

It went something like this:

At the 2006 NATO summit, all members of the alliance unanimously pledged to "commit a minimum of 2 percent of their GDP to spending on defense."

This agreement was made in good faith with no hard deadlines, base on the understanding that the little guys in the East with less money to spend would probably need more time to reach that target than the wealthy world powers with deep pockets and high-tech armies the West.

The U.S, U.K, Greece, little Poland, and tiny Estonia quickly fulfilled that pledge.

Everyone else in the club just plods along in the 8 years following that summit. Defense spending were set as low as they can just to keep their armies on life support, with no intention to ever reach that minimum commitment. Because there's always that other guy who will pick up the heavy lifting.

As the result, there's no shortage of news headlines about Allies military equipment breaking down, or comedic episodes like troops being sent to peace-keeping operations in the sand-blasted Middle East with jungle-green camo.

In 2014, this unacceptable "progress" was one of the main agendas at that year's NATO summit, and a hard deadline was set this time for all the laggards: 2024.


Here's the latest updates on our most trusted NATO allies:

- All of the current contenders for France's Presidential office say they want France's defense spending (currently 1.79%) to reach at least 2% on their watch. Half of the pack actually want to boost it to 3%. I think we will actually see it happens in a few years.

- Germany is increasing their military spending , albeit at a glacial rate. It is my personal opinion that they're dragging it out for as long as they could, and will probably reach that minimum target right before the 2024 ultimatum, nearly two decades after the 2006 Summit.

- Harper did some good things to get the Canadian military back on their feet again (they even have desert-theme camo now), and it looked promising for a while there, but Trudeau pretty much abandoned that pledge all together when he took office. I do not think NATO should realistically exepects anything more than the current 1% from Canada.

- The U.K's defense spending had consistently exceeding 2% for decades, even before the 206 Summit. But after multiple rounds of absolutely-brutal budget cuts in recent years (that pretty much destroyed the Royal Navy), the British Ministry of Defence is now accused by independent defense analysts of cooking the books with "creative accounting" to reach that target. If you take out the questionable stuff, they're at 1.98%.

See, when I first heard iths story, I thought it was always a hard deadline. Now, I'm learning that it wasn't. The only hard deadline was adopted 3 years ago.

To me, that makes this a non-issue. If they wanted immediate actions they would have set a hard deadline from the beginning. I can't blame countries for taking their sweet time when they weren't obligated to go any faster. And if we only set a hard deadline in the last couple of years then there's no argument to be made that people should move faster than the deadline allows.

Personally, I can't take the NATO spending story seriously anymore. No violated their obligations, the problem was how the obligations were set up to begin with. We can't enter a contract and then get upset because people stick to the letter of the contract and not the implied elements. If the implied elements were important, we should have written them down.

 

[Arkain2K]

See, when I first heard iths story, I thought it was always a hard deadline. Now, I'm learning that it wasn't. The only hard deadline was adopted 3 years ago.

To me, that makes this a non-issue. If they wanted immediate actions they would have set a hard deadline from the beginning. I can't blame countries for taking their sweet time when they weren't obligated to go any faster. And if we only set a hard deadline in the last couple of years then there's no argument to be made that people should move faster than the deadline allows.

Personally, I can't take the NATO spending story seriously anymore. No violated their obligations, the problem was how the obligations were set up to begin with. We can't enter a contract and then get upset because people stick to the letter of the contract and not the implied elements. If the implied elements were important, we should have written them down.

Are you absolutely sure that's the slippery slope you want to go down?

Incidentally, there's also no hard-set target date as to when NATO allies needs to arrive to a member's aid when they're under attack, or a hard-set number as to how much of their military they need send.

This alliance worked so well during the Cold War, because everyone in the club understood the importance of fulfilling their commitments to the Alliance to the best of their abilities, not dragging their feet for as long as possible, and do the littlest as possible, like what people are doing right now. If you agree with that new attitude, you're just merely reinforcing the notion that this alliance is indeed obsolete and useless. Why have it at all with that kind of "responsible allies"?

But if Europe also think it's a total non-issue when the shit hits the fan and a certain strong & powerful NATO member on the other side of the Atlantic decides to honor their obligations "to the letter" with the same enthusiasm by sending one jet fighter, one tank, and one boat to the party, at the very last possible minute, then that's their prerogative.