https://www.politico.eu/article/us-president-joe-biden-embra...As leaders of the 30 allied nations gather for a summit at headquarters in Brussels on Monday, the new U.S. president among them, one big topic will be a push by Washington to focus more on threats posed by China. But European allies have long been ill-prepared to protect themselves closer to home — from Russia, NATO’s historic rival. Against China, defense experts say, many European militaries would be utterly useless.“European forces aren’t ready to fight with the equipment they have,” analysts from the Center for American Progress*, a progressive think tank close to the White House, wrote in a recent report. “And the equipment they have isn’t good enough.”Russia may be a pale shadow of the Soviet Union might. But then so is NATO.https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/nato-runs-s... Less than a month into the Libyan conflict, NATO is running short of precision bombs , highlighting the limitations of Britain, France and other European countries in sustaining even a relatively small military action over an extended period of time, according to senior NATO and U.S. officials.Libya “has not been a very big war. If [the Europeans] would run out of these munitions this early in such a small operation, you have to wonder what kind of war they were planning on fighting,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense think tank. “Maybe they were just planning on using their air force for air shows." *https://www.politico.eu/article/report-joe-biden-should-push...Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank with close ties to the Biden administration.There is general agreement among critics and proponents of EU military integration that national armed forces in Europe are not up to scratch — especially in Germany, the EU’s richest and politically most powerful member.On this point, the authors of the new report readily agree. “Today, much of Europe’s military hardware is in a shocking state of disrepair,” they wrote. “European forces aren’t ready to fight with the equipment they have, and the equipment they have isn’t good enough.
NATO spent a little over $1 trillion dollars and the US spent a little over $780 billion on defense in 2020. Russia spent around $60 billion. With these kind of numbers I would be more concerned with China.Walt
Russia spent around $60 billion.The Russians had planned to buy a whole lot of modern Armata tanks but Putin's Oligarchy (that keeps him in power) needed new palaces for their mistresses. NATO has been supporting the US troops in Afghanistan for a couple of decades even though it is not really part of NATO's area of interest. The Canadians finally realized there was no plan to ever leave and were getting tired of losing troops so pulled out. Now we have a useful mission leading a Team in one of the Baltic countries (Latvia) to provide a forward presence to remind Putin that NATO still exists, is not weak. This is a real NATO mission unlike Afghanistan. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/service...Oh, NATO also has provided and continues to provide AWACs surveillance from FOBs (Forward Operating Bases) in Turkey and Italy. They keep an eye on Ukraine, Middle East and other areas of interest as tasked by the US NATO commander. I worked on the main NATO AWACs base at Geilenkirchen Germany for 13 years (1988 to 2001 3 years military AOCP programmer and another ten years as a senior analyst programmer for Logistics. My first trip to Germany was at barely 18 yo infantryman with 4 CIBG (a heavy brigade that could quickly become an armoured division) assigned to 2nd army BAOR (British Army On Rhine). NATO has some weak nations but the majority are strongly committed and send their best. Tim
NATO spent a little over $1 trillion dollars and the US spent a little over $780 billion on defense in 2020. Russia spent around $60 billion.With these kind of numbers I would be more concerned with China.WaltWhile Russia is the largest country in the world with nearly 4 times Canada's population their GDP is smaller than ours? If it weren't for a whole lot of mostly old nuclear weapons I can't imagine why your POTUS is wasting his time talking to such a corrupt regime?Of course Putin is no fool and knows that he can't actually use those weapons or even attack NATO as it would be all over for his current charade?One of the amazing claims is the one where the Russian military surprises NATO with an all out attack (Battle of the Bulge) scenario. Of course the vast majority of the Russian military numbers are reservists many of whom haven't seen training in a decade or more. Try and keep a secret of them being called to duty? Only half of those called up initially for military training actually show up ... mostly the poor ones who can't afford to bribe the officials. Russian infantry soldiers in basic training get to fire eight shots from their rifle ... then can be sent off to battle. If they volunteer for an extension (few do) they are immediately promoted to Sgt and can now torment the raw recruits. With all due respect the OP is complete nonsense. There are a lot of countries on the edges of the Russian Empire doing anything they can to join NATO. Tim
https://original.antiwar.com/Daniel_Larison/2021/06/15/farew...The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been an alliance without a purpose for thirty years, and every few years it latches on to the latest big security issue to justify its continued existence. In the 1990s, Balkan interventionism and peacekeeping filled the void left by the demise of the Soviet Union and collapse of the Warsaw Pact. The illegal Kosovo war in 1999 was the alliance’s first time fighting against an enemy, and that was a war of aggression against a single, much weaker country. Since then, the "most successful alliance in history" has opted to fight almost everywhere but in Europe in wars that have had nothing to do with the collective security of the alliance’s members. If NATO had remained a strictly defensive alliance committed to its members’ security and nothing else, it might have been worth preserving. Since it long ago turned into a vehicle for enabling and supporting unnecessary U.S. military interventions, the US should get out.The bolded portion must be a typo. Why would the US want out if they utilize NATO military willy-nilly. Should be EU should get out in my opinion.US involvement in NATO has served mainly to drag European states into our wars of choice elsewhere.Since the end of the Cold War, NATO and NATO expansion have served to sour relations between the US and Russia.This thread has brought up China & Russia. https://original.antiwar.com/Dave_DeCamp/2021/06/15/despite-...US sanctions and other actions against Russia and China have naturally drawn Beijing and Moscow closer together. Despite the obvious result of Washington’s policies over the past few years, US officials are acting surprised and concerned about the growing Russia-China relationship.Can they really be that stupid in Washington DC? No more likely that act of surprise is for the benefit the governed rubes. Methinks it has been intentional by the current administration to heighten tensions & drive defense spending.
The Russian-China relationship has been there since the early days of Communism and no matter what you call Russia now it still functions as if it was a Communist country.For evidence of this relationship between the the two entities just look at the early support for the Chinese Communist Party by the Russian Communist and the spread of Communism into North Korea and Vietnam. The spread of Communism into these countries was backed with the support of both countries.So this renewed relationship between Russia and China should not be a surprise as the renewed strength of America under Biden promises to counter act any of their plans.
For evidence of this relationship between the the two entities just look at the early support for the Chinese Communist Party by the Russian Communist and the spread of Communism into North Korea and Vietnam. The spread of Communism into these countries was backed with the support of both countries.It wasn't always as smooth as you suggest? Russia backed Vietnam when China attempted to punish them for their attacks on the Khmer Rouge. When all the smoke cleared the Chinese got a bloody nose and decided they needed to modernize their military forces. The Chinese military today is vastly more professional and well equipped than the peasant human waves they started out with. Meanwhile the victorious Russian military that took Berlin in 1945 is long past the glory days. The quality is so low that some Russian Oligarch billionaires built their own mercenary forces to dabble in places such as Syria, Libya and others. Results were not great with many of them flown back to Russia in body bags (Vietnam style?) and quietly buried in graves with only the family there as they didn't want the unwashed masses to know how awful they were. Tim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_Warhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkFcgNBz__oRussia’s Mercenary Collision in Syria
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |