Politics

Red Leg said:

That is an uninformed statement. I'll tell you a little secret. Both the EU and Canada will cave on the tariff dispute. They can't even afford to wait for a potentially hopeful (for them) outcome in November. They need the US market far more than the US needs them - in large part because of the protective tariff systems they have had in place since WWII. Meanwhile, the US was forced to find alternative markets. And here's another little secret - Canada is no more self-sufficient than Minnesota.

And there is some truth to the defense spending argument. Canada largely has done away with her military to free up discretionary money for social welfare spending. You can look up the decline in defense outlay dollars yourself. They have no real Navy (it has zero resupply capability), no meaningful Air Force, and the ground forces aren't even a shadow of what they were in the nineties much less the seventies when the Canadian armored brigade was the best in Europe. They have been able to do this because of the defense umbrella afforded by ……… that's right - their irritating neighbor to the south.

Click to expand...

I’m sure if we put our mind to it, we could still manage to burn down the White House once again, and then come home and get bandaged up for free!

Alistair said:

Hmm, this thread has rather drifted.

Click to expand...

And I've been a guilty part of it.

@BRICKBURN ,

Perhaps it's time for one of your magical thread splits? Two good threads here, but they definitely aren't related.

Alistair said:

Hmm, this thread has rather drifted.

In the interest of reasoned discussion, I'll try and play devil's advocate here and communicate the views of some in Europe (not necessarily my own).

For some, the whole 'Europeans should count America as a friend and respect her accordingly because she protects Europe from Russia' is an interesting one. On the one hand, yes, American involvement with NATO is undoubtedly a foil to Russian interests in Europe, but at what cost does it come? When NATO came about, it was a no brainer. Back then, Russia = communism, and few countries in Europe wanted that, so American assistance was gratefully recieved. Plus, most of Europe was broke. But today? There is still a gulf between Russian policy and culture and that of say France or Germany, but it's now much smaller than it once was.

In that context, the question is really 'Are American and European interests actually any closer aligned than Russian and European ones?'. To many Europeans, the answer isn't actually that clear. There are huge social, political and cultural differences between Europe and America today as well, so Russia, by comparison, doesn't seem that alien. Russia is quite agressive and expansionist, perhaps more so than America is, undoubtedly in Europe, but few people in Europe genuinely believe that there is a threat of Russian annexation of 'major' European powers anyway, so is that an issue? Ukraine, yeah, but nuclear powers or major nations like France or Germany? Harder to believe. As such, the 'need' for NATO is seen as reduced.

At that point, the question arises as to whether the 'cost' of increased American involvement in Europe is worthwhile for that security. For some at least, the real cost here is the cultural dilution. Close links with America have historically meant increased import of American culture, business and ideas. TV, Music, Movies, Products, Brands and most importantly Politics. European nations also get dragged into 'American Wars' such as Iraq etc through NATO or American links that actually, we'd have happily kept out of otherwise. With that backdrop, do these American links actually align with current European societal norms and crucially is this something that Europeans actually want in 2018? Furthermore, would rejection of a lot of these links actually be to Europes benefit, even if at the cost of closer links with Russia? For some, it's hard to say.

Rightly or wrongly, the simple fact is that many Europeans feel that they have very little in common with America and feel little comradeship with her people, politics or policy, so the idea of American meddling, no matter how altruistic, in Europe doesn't always sit well. There isn't an obvious 'enemy at the gates' like there used to be with communism, so the benefit of that aid isn't as clear. This lack of concern is also reflected in the lack of military investment by many NATO members at present. Who are they spending 2% of GDP to protect from, really?

Click to expand...

Interesting observation. I'd personally be quite pleased as an American taxpayer to no longer be paying so much for defense, particularly if many of the people benefitting from find no value in it. Because in the end this is what it's all about:

https://newcoldwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/World-military-spending.jpg?422af0&422af0

PHOENIX PHIL said:

Because in the end this is what it's all about:

https://newcoldwar.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/World-military-spending.jpg?422af0&422af0

Click to expand...

Isn't it just. Of course, one could argue that's more for the USA's own benefit in staying ahead of the Chinese than the Russians, who, by your own graphic spend barely any more than the UK alone, and markedly less than the combined expenditure of the big EU countries like France, Germany and the UK combined whom the US is supposedly spending to protect...

Funny, after 70 years of welfare the Euros are panicking cause America has a leader who expects NATO nations to "pay their fair share" because the simple truth is: You can have a welfare state or a robust national defense, but you can't have both.

Intriguing thread, and posts. As an Aussie, we're well clear of this particular argument/arrangement; BUT we have at least one of our own: China. China seems to be following, in some form or another, the philosophy of some in japan post WW11; "Militarily we may have lost, but in a hundred years we will own you financially." The rise of Korea and S E Asia has dimmed that.
Where China threatens the "west" is in unequal trade, as written about above. One belt, one road could very well denude any bargaining power the west might have. This is exacerbated by western dependence on China for cheaper consumer goods such as those processed through Canada and Mexico,all in the short-sighted pursuit of profit, and the selling out of technology.
At least the US, and Europe, don't have an archipelago of "created" militarised islands lying right across your major trade routes.
The other threat, of course, is Islam. Among Mohammed's writings (Koran) and Islamic teachings are requirements that people of "the faith"are not obliged to respect others' laws and practices, and apply the harshest punishments for disobeying Islam. The EU, Britain, Germany and Sweden in particular have betrayed their own in their acceptance of open Islamic migration.
Maybe it's about time the EU and the US took a really long view ...

markferrigno said:

Funny, after 70 years of welfare the Euros are panicking cause America has a leader who expects NATO nations to "pay their fair share" because the simple truth is: You can have a welfare state or a robust national defense, but you can't have both.

Click to expand...

This is exactly the problem, the creation of welfare states. They get so used to it they do not want to do anything to help themselves. This is what Canada created with equalization payment, the have not provinces wont do anything to attract new business but expect the other provinces to foot the bill. The same thing is happening in Europe but on a country level.

Alistair said:

Hmm, this thread has rather drifted.

In the interest of reasoned discussion, I'll try and play devil's advocate here and communicate the views of some in Europe (not necessarily my own).

For some, the whole 'Europeans should count America as a friend and respect her accordingly because she protects Europe from Russia' is an interesting one. On the one hand, yes, American involvement with NATO is undoubtedly a foil to Russian interests in Europe, but at what cost does it come? When NATO came about, it was a no brainer. Back then, Russia = communism, and few countries in Europe wanted that, so American assistance was gratefully recieved. Plus, most of Europe was broke. But today? There is still a gulf between Russian policy and culture and that of say France or Germany, but it's now much smaller than it once was.

In that context, the question is really 'Are American and European interests actually any closer aligned than Russian and European ones?'. To many Europeans, the answer isn't actually that clear. There are huge social, political and cultural differences between Europe and America today as well, so Russia, by comparison, doesn't seem that alien. Russia is quite agressive and expansionist, perhaps more so than America is, undoubtedly in Europe, but few people in Europe genuinely believe that there is a threat of Russian annexation of 'major' European powers anyway, so is that an issue? Ukraine, yeah, but nuclear powers or major nations like France or Germany? Harder to believe. As such, the 'need' for NATO is seen as reduced.

At that point, the question arises as to whether the 'cost' of increased American involvement in Europe is worthwhile for that security. For some at least, the real cost here is the cultural dilution. Close links with America have historically meant increased import of American culture, business and ideas. TV, Music, Movies, Products, Brands and most importantly Politics. European nations also get dragged into 'American Wars' such as Iraq etc through NATO or American links that actually, we'd have happily kept out of otherwise. With that backdrop, do these American links actually align with current European societal norms and crucially is this something that Europeans actually want in 2018? Furthermore, would rejection of a lot of these links actually be to Europes benefit, even if at the cost of closer links with Russia? For some, it's hard to say.

Rightly or wrongly, the simple fact is that many Europeans feel that they have very little in common with America and feel little comradeship with her people, politics or policy, so the idea of American meddling, no matter how altruistic, in Europe doesn't always sit well. There isn't an obvious 'enemy at the gates' like there used to be with communism, so the benefit of that aid isn't as clear. This lack of concern is also reflected in the lack of military investment by many NATO members at present. Who are they spending 2% of GDP to protect from, really?

Click to expand...

@Alistair I enjoyed reading this well written and thoughtful post. A thought provoking one indeed. Thank you.
I would make this comment and ask the following question of anyone who cares to comment.

Alistair said:

Russia is quite agressive and expansionist, perhaps more so than America is, undoubtedly in Europe, but few people in Europe genuinely believe that there is a threat of Russian annexation of 'major' European powers anyway, so is that an issue? Ukraine, yeah, but nuclear powers or major nations like France or Germany? Harder to believe. As such, the 'need' for NATO is seen as reduced.

Click to expand...

Annexation of a major european power may not be likely. Also quite possibly unnecessary. Suppose for a moment there is no NATO and the U.S. is not willing to use its “resources” on europe’s behalf. What does Europe’s existence look like within Russia’s unfettered sphere of influence?
I do not know the answer to that question. I am pretty certain it looks different than it does today though.

Alistair said:

Hmm, this thread has rather drifted.

In the interest of reasoned discussion, I'll try and play devil's advocate here and communicate the views of some in Europe (not necessarily my own).

For some, the whole 'Europeans should count America as a friend and respect her accordingly because she protects Europe from Russia' is an interesting one. On the one hand, yes, American involvement with NATO is undoubtedly a foil to Russian interests in Europe, but at what cost does it come? When NATO came about, it was a no brainer. Back then, Russia = communism, and few countries in Europe wanted that, so American assistance was gratefully recieved. Plus, most of Europe was broke. But today? There is still a gulf between Russian policy and culture and that of say France or Germany, but it's now much smaller than it once was.

In that context, the question is really 'Are American and European interests actually any closer aligned than Russian and European ones?'. To many Europeans, the answer isn't actually that clear. There are huge social, political and cultural differences between Europe and America today as well, so Russia, by comparison, doesn't seem that alien. Russia is quite agressive and expansionist, perhaps more so than America is, undoubtedly in Europe, but few people in Europe genuinely believe that there is a threat of Russian annexation of 'major' European powers anyway, so is that an issue? Ukraine, yeah, but nuclear powers or major nations like France or Germany? Harder to believe. As such, the 'need' for NATO is seen as reduced.

At that point, the question arises as to whether the 'cost' of increased American involvement in Europe is worthwhile for that security. For some at least, the real cost here is the cultural dilution. Close links with America have historically meant increased import of American culture, business and ideas. TV, Music, Movies, Products, Brands and most importantly Politics. European nations also get dragged into 'American Wars' such as Iraq etc through NATO or American links that actually, we'd have happily kept out of otherwise. With that backdrop, do these American links actually align with current European societal norms and crucially is this something that Europeans actually want in 2018? Furthermore, would rejection of a lot of these links actually be to Europes benefit, even if at the cost of closer links with Russia? For some, it's hard to say.

Rightly or wrongly, the simple fact is that many Europeans feel that they have very little in common with America and feel little comradeship with her people, politics or policy, so the idea of American meddling, no matter how altruistic, in Europe doesn't always sit well. There isn't an obvious 'enemy at the gates' like there used to be with communism, so the benefit of that aid isn't as clear. This lack of concern is also reflected in the lack of military investment by many NATO members at present. Who are they spending 2% of GDP to protect from, really?

Click to expand...

Good thoughts and observations.

If Germany or the EU, if they are the new sovereign, want to leave NATO, then that is fine. I doubt that most Americans want to be involved with NATO anyway. Especially the way things stand now.

Would Russia invade Germany or France in the near future. This would be a very slim possibility. Wonder if Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia might have other thoughts. A large country like Poland may also have concerns with their history with Russia. Events of the last ten years in the European countries of Georgia and Ukraine may make smaller countries more nervous than U.K., Germany and France. What responsibilities do the large countries of Europe have to the smaller countries may be a key question.

IdaRam said:

@Alistair I enjoyed reading this well written and thoughtful post. A thought provoking one indeed. Thank you.
I would make this comment and ask the following question of anyone who cares to comment.

Annexation of a major european power may not be likely. Also quite possibly unnecessary. Suppose for a moment there is no NATO and the U.S. is not willing to use its “resources” on europe’s behalf. What does Europe’s existence look like within Russia’s unfettered sphere of influence?
I do not know the answer to that question. I am pretty certain it looks different than it does today though.

Click to expand...

I started my thoughts, walked away and finished them only to realize your post was essentially the same. Great minds????

Interesting comments on the quality of American firearms...

To get back on topic (quality of US firearms) the driver seems to be cost-cutting; products built to a price. Good stuff is "out there", as is really good stuff. Personally, I'm a Ruger fan, and the FN backed Winchesters too...

IdaRam said:

@Alistair

Annexation of a major european power may not be likely. Also quite possibly unnecessary. Suppose for a moment there is no NATO and the U.S. is not willing to use its “resources” on europe’s behalf. What does Europe’s existence look like within Russia’s unfettered sphere of influence?
I do not know the answer to that question. I am pretty certain it looks different than it does today though.

Click to expand...

I'll bite. This situation assumes an extremely isolationist USA with little to no interest or exposure in Europe. It assumes a 'worst case' scenario where the USA is extremely reluctant to be involved at all, even in the face of serious Russian threat or political pressure.

Fairly soon after NATO is abolished, Russia will begin annexation of ex-soviet states. This will happen piecemeal under the guise of humanitarian or peacekeeping activities, but culminates with the integration of more of the Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia etc after 10-15 years. The EU will threaten economic sanctions, but without US support, these carry little weight. Worried, the major powers do, ironically, begin to meet and exceed the 2% GDP requirement for military spending, cutting by necessity social programmes and raising taxes to do so. This will be extremely unpopular, leading to social unrest and a rise of the left in many countries.

Eventually, maybe 30 years down the line, Russia will get uncomfortably close to the countries pulling the strings (threathening Poland perhaps, or Slovakia). Now seriously fearing for the cohesion of the EU, the major powers of Europe deliver a ultimatum. Cease and desist with these expansionist policies, or we will retailiate with a conventional or even nuclear response. Russia call the EU's bluff, knowing that politicians in the countries that matter for this type of response (Germany and France, primarily, the UK having Brexited years ago) haven't got the stomach or the resources for a boots on the ground war, nor will they risk the end of the world over Slovakia of all places. Expansion continues. Having been shown to be unable to protect member states, the EU quickly disintegrates, with numerous small countries 'in the firing line' seeking to form closer alliances with the new Russian federation.

At this point, fearing the rise of a new, genuine Russian superpower, the US, and increasingly China is forced to become involved once more and the situation stabilises. Russia, hit with increasingly heavy sanctions from the US and China, which actually have the pull to make this work, becomes less aggressive, pulling back from Poland etc, but retaining much of their recently acquired territory in Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, the Ukraine. Having overstretched and seemingly 'surrendering' once more, the russian political climate changes, becoming more conciliatory, especially now they are trading from a position of greater strength with additional territory.

Russia focusses on cultural intergration of the annexed states, investing in infrastructure and education to advance their nations wealth and competitiveness in the global economy, something which is still pretty weak for the size of the country and the population. We see an increasing drive for foreign investment in Russia, which due to increasing concerns over the political ambitions of China, as well as the rising wages there, is welcomed by many developed countries. Russia becomes richer and interestingly the standard of living in many of the smaller Eastern European states improves significantly.

Meanwhile, the former EU states go back to the pre-EU state of relatively close trade links and shared investment of infrastructure, but without the increasingly closer political and military integration seen now. Peoples' trust in the 'EU project' is shaken and little appetite remains for an EU superstate. Military spending remains high, covered primarily by higher taxes, not at the expense of social reform.

Russia quitely begin to explore expansion to the South East, reasoning that the European and US powers will turn a blind eye as it doesn't affect them and may bring a bit more stability to the region...

Of course, there are a huge number of assumptions in this scenario, but this seems just about feasible as the worst case scenario.

The only issue with this assumption is NATO being abolished. The US will never pull out and the Euro countries would never let it happen. They will quietly increase military spending and wait Trump out, the next President will be "conventional" (spineless) and let the Euros go back to pre-Trump spending levels on NATO. And we will spend Trillions over the next 70 years defending Europe..........

Wheels said:

I started my thoughts, walked away and finished them only to realize your post was essentially the same. Great minds????

Click to expand...

That is the ONLY explanation I can think of

And I guess we have once again established what we already knew? Modern Liberalism is a mental disease, politicians are less than worthless, and the .375 H&H is the greatest cartrtidge of all time!
No?

Wheels said:

Not sure where @flat8 got his info, but I had heard it as well. This is what I found. Looks like a battalion instead of the entire army. I have read in other places that Germany's equipment readiness is generally less than 50%

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201802151061685708-germany-army-lacks-tanks/

The German Bundeswehr lacks tanks to fulfill its obligations to NATO as the ninth tank brigade stationed in Münster, which according to army's plan should be engaged in NATO's new force, now has only nine combat-capable of the required 44 Leopard-2 tanks and three of the 14 Marder infantry fighting vehicles, newspaper Die Welt reports, citing a secret document of the country's Defense Ministry.



I also remember the Germans using broomsticks for rifles in NATO exercises, so had to look it up. This is what I found.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...omsticks-instead-of-guns-during-training.html


German soldiers used broomsticks painted black instead of guns during a joint Nato exercise last year due to severe equipment shortages, it has emerged.

The incident took place during exercises for Nato's rapid response force, formed in reaction to the Ukraine crisis, which is supposed to be ready to deploy anywhere it is needed at very short notice.

Soldiers in the Panzergrenadierbataillon 371 took part in the exercises last September in Norway.

The troops were missing 31 per cent of their MG3 general-purpose machine guns, 41 per cent of their P8 handguns, and more than three-quarters of their Lucie night-vision devices.


Wonder why Trump is pushing NATO members to meet their 2% obligation.

Click to expand...

Wheels, you are correct. I’m talking about to fulfill NATO obligations.

@HWL, i’ve been your country several times and have great respect for the German people. However, Germany is not meeting her commitments to NATO and (a totally separate issue) your country is being sacrificed to the alter of political correctness and progressivism. In two decades there will not be in Germany as you know it.

IdaRam said:

And I guess we have once again established what we already knew? Modern Liberalism is a mental disease, politicians are less than worthless, and the .375 H&H is the greatest cartrtidge of all time!
No?

Click to expand...

Naaah, 7X57, THEN maybe, the 375H&H...

My take, Russia could care less about it's former satellites unless they are sitting on oil or gas, except for the Baltic states. If it was not for Gazprom they would be flat broke. (I suggest folks take a quick vacation at Europa Park [Rust, Germany] and see who sponsors the rides, hint it's Gazprom and Petronas). Russia needs Euros/Dollars and they are not going to do anything that keeps them from getting those Euros/Dollars. Why invade Germany when they are Russia's bankers, take over Germany, and the financing goes away. It's just that simple. As long as Germany keeps buying from Gazprom, they are safe from Russia.

The USA needs to be concerned about China. My first trip to China (1989), special money for foreigners, special lines for foreigners, special everything for foreigners, as their money was worthless, not anymore. And the tanks no longer run over its citizens, but their economy is about to run over us.