War with Russia

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Bluebarge said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

It does suit NATO to have the big bad bear back,

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 13th July 09:24

No, it really doesn't. Every constituent member of NATO has better things to spend its money on than weapons to defend against the 19c. delusions of Vlad and his chums. However, Vlad's desire for Lebensraum is not even leaving the Doves with much choice. So, we are all left the poorer. Well done Vlad

NATO was an answer looking for a question after the end of the cold war. The Ukrainian mess has given it a new lease of life and money. You have no need for Air defence, Anti submarine equipment, submarines,deep strike aircraft, stealth etc. when you bombing Guys with Ak-47s, RPGs and IEDs. Russia, however you need all the toys and more.

[Cobnapint]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Bluebarge said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

It does suit NATO to have the big bad bear back,

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 13th July 09:24

No, it really doesn't. Every constituent member of NATO has better things to spend its money on than weapons to defend against the 19c. delusions of Vlad and his chums. However, Vlad's desire for Lebensraum is not even leaving the Doves with much choice. So, we are all left the poorer. Well done Vlad

NATO was an answer looking for a question after the end of the cold war. The Ukrainian mess has given it a new lease of life and money. You have no need for Air defence, Anti submarine equipment, submarines,deep strike aircraft, stealth etc. when you bombing Guys with Ak-47s, RPGs and IEDs. Russia, however you need all the toys and more.

So you think that NATO is some kind of money grabbing entity that takes money from member states and enjoys lavishing itself with all sorts of military luxuries for the fun of it - a bit like a non-military FIFA ....?

And that NATO member and non-member states are more than happy with the thought that Putin is trying to undo the excellent work in massively improved international relations and trust that Gorbachev did, and would prefer to be in a constant state of wariness, having to spend billions on kit to trying to quell the ego of a chest thumping Russian leader who, because his name ends with 'in' regards himself in history as being up there with Lenin and Stalin in the bronze statue stakes - rather than being relaxed, at peace and solvent...?

Righto.

[Asterix]

Cobnapint said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Bluebarge said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

It does suit NATO to have the big bad bear back,

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 13th July 09:24

No, it really doesn't. Every constituent member of NATO has better things to spend its money on than weapons to defend against the 19c. delusions of Vlad and his chums. However, Vlad's desire for Lebensraum is not even leaving the Doves with much choice. So, we are all left the poorer. Well done Vlad

NATO was an answer looking for a question after the end of the cold war. The Ukrainian mess has given it a new lease of life and money. You have no need for Air defence, Anti submarine equipment, submarines,deep strike aircraft, stealth etc. when you bombing Guys with Ak-47s, RPGs and IEDs. Russia, however you need all the toys and more.

So you think that NATO is some kind of money grabbing entity that takes money from member states and enjoys lavishing itself with all sorts of military luxuries for the fun of it - a bit like a non-military FIFA ....?

And that NATO member and non-member states are more than happy with the thought that Putin is trying to undo the excellent work in massively improved international relations and trust that Gorbachev did, and would prefer to be in a constant state of wariness, having to spend billions on kit to trying to quell the ego of a chest thumping Russian leader who, because his name ends with 'in' regards himself in history as being up there with Lenin and Stalin in the bronze statue stakes - rather than being relaxed, at peace and solvent...?

Righto.

A military FIFA would be interesting.

[benjj]

Looks like they've lost a bomber (Bear) over Khabarovsk. Not sure if just crashed or more to it.

[Bluebarge]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

The Ukrainian mess has given it a new lease of life and money.

This is the only bit I disagree with. NATO countries don't want to have to sustain Cold War levels of spending which is why Vlad's new approach is so unwelcome to NATO countries. Look at the difficulties the US has in getting NATO members to spend 2% of GDP on defence; look at the pathetic accounting tricks the UK Govt is now deploying to show that it is a "good boy" and spending the 2% required, when we all know UK forces are now a shadow of what they were in the 90's. Nobody wants to waste money on defence, but now they are forced to.

That is why the current cycle of posturing is so destructive and pointless. The energy spent designing and building toys that no-one wants to deploy would be better spent on increasing wealth and dealing with important global issues. Instead Vlad is obsessed with re-drawing maps to reflect minuscule ethnic differences. "Oh, those Russians" (c) Boney M 1978

[Cobnapint]

benjj said:

Looks like they've lost a bomber (Bear) over Khabarovsk. Not sure if just crashed or more to it.

That's a bit far for an imperialist western air to air missile, or a Ukrainian SAM........who they gonna blame this time?

[AreOut]

those Bears are 60 years old on average so that's kinda expected, it's good the crew has ejected safely

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Cobnapint said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Bluebarge said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

It does suit NATO to have the big bad bear back,

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Monday 13th July 09:24

No, it really doesn't. Every constituent member of NATO has better things to spend its money on than weapons to defend against the 19c. delusions of Vlad and his chums. However, Vlad's desire for Lebensraum is not even leaving the Doves with much choice. So, we are all left the poorer. Well done Vlad

NATO was an answer looking for a question after the end of the cold war. The Ukrainian mess has given it a new lease of life and money. You have no need for Air defence, Anti submarine equipment, submarines,deep strike aircraft, stealth etc. when you bombing Guys with Ak-47s, RPGs and IEDs. Russia, however you need all the toys and more.

So you think that NATO is some kind of money grabbing entity that takes money from member states and enjoys lavishing itself with all sorts of military luxuries for the fun of it - a bit like a non-military FIFA ....?

And that NATO member and non-member states are more than happy with the thought that Putin is trying to undo the excellent work in massively improved international relations and trust that Gorbachev did, and would prefer to be in a constant state of wariness, having to spend billions on kit to trying to quell the ego of a chest thumping Russian leader who, because his name ends with 'in' regards himself in history as being up there with Lenin and Stalin in the bronze statue stakes - rather than being relaxed, at peace and solvent...?

Righto.

NATO was in danger of becoming irrelevant, it no longer is, thanks to the Ukrainian promotion of democracy effort.

The spending is just a side effect of this, a useful one for NATO militaries in this case, after years of cut backs, a Wolf at the door or a Bear across the steppes does help.

[Cobnapint]

I'm sure NATO would much prefer irrelevant status, rather than having to sit there constantly studying satellite photos, radar screens and intelligence reports.

This isn't about budget size and employment, it's about living a quiet life, without fear of some land grabbing lunatic carrying out military exercises with little green men just over your border.

[IroningMan]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

NATO was in danger of becoming irrelevant, it no longer is, thanks to the Ukrainian promotion of democracy effort.

The spending is just a side effect of this, a useful one for NATO militaries in this case, after years of cut backs, a Wolf at the door or a Bear across the steppes does help.

You write as if NATO were an entity in its own right. It's not and never has been. It's a statement of intent. NATO member states have been backing away from their 1980s commitments as fast as their legs will carry them for the last 25 years - or hadn't you noticed?

[Mojocvh]

AreOut said:

those Bears are 60 years old on average so that's kinda expected, it's good the crew has ejected safely

eject?

[AreOut]

parachuted my bad

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Cobnapint said:

I'm sure NATO would much prefer irrelevant status, rather than having to sit there constantly studying satellite photos, radar screens and intelligence reports.

This isn't about budget size and employment, it's about living a quiet life, without fear of some land grabbing lunatic carrying out military exercises with little green men just over your border.

Let's disagree on this, The UK Military were quite happy to sign up to two simultaneous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, knowing they could not support both sufficiently. It was instructive to listen to "Lord" Dannatt explain why the entire strategy was flawed from the beginning, both strategically and tactically, but clearly the opportunity of playing soldiers was just to attractive to turn down, no "quiet life" for a career officer.

If you consider the conduct of that glorious little war, perhaps he should have stayed home and studied the aerial photos and intelligence reports a touch more, perhaps marched up and down the square a few times before getting out the little army play set.

Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Thursday 16th July 13:36

[Mojocvh]

" The UK Military were quite happy to sign up to two simultaneous wars"

You are an ignorant bigot.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Mojocvh said:

" The UK Military were quite happy to sign up to two simultaneous wars"

You are an ignorant bigot.

Ignorant Bigot? Gosh, how can I compete with a detailed, well thought out argument like that?

I was just being informed how the UK Military much preferred to live a wonderfully peaceful existence rather than getting all fighty and warry. It seems the top brass quite like playing soldier. What better way to ensure your influence is maintained, after 2 recent failures, than having a big scary enemy, from which everyone needs protecting.

[Jinx]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

Ignorant Bigot? Gosh, how can I compete with a detailed, well thought out argument like that?

I was just being informed how the UK Military much preferred to live a wonderfully peaceful existence rather than getting all fighty and warry. It seems the top brass quite like playing soldier. What better way to ensure your influence is maintained, after 2 recent failures, than having a big scary enemy, from which everyone needs protecting.

The military do not decide whether to go to war or not - that is for ignorant politicians. Top brass knew they were not in good shape for the Afghan campaign.

[Bluebarge]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

I was just being informed how the UK Military much preferred to live a wonderfully peaceful existence rather than getting all fighty and warry. It seems the top brass quite like playing soldier.

That's just childish. In a democracy, soldiers do what they're told to do by politicians (unless they are asked to do the impossible, in which case their only recourse is to resign).

I understand why you struggle with this concept, coming from a country run by former secret service agents, but that is how it works in successful countries.

[scherzkeks]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

What better way to ensure your influence is maintained, after 2 recent failures, than having a big scary enemy, from which everyone needs protecting.

This is US FP in a nutshell. It's Cold War/Red Scare 2.0.

[QuantumTokoloshi]

Bluebarge said:

QuantumTokoloshi said:

I was just being informed how the UK Military much preferred to live a wonderfully peaceful existence rather than getting all fighty and warry. It seems the top brass quite like playing soldier.

That's just childish. In a democracy, soldiers do what they're told to do by politicians (unless they are asked to do the impossible, in which case their only recourse is to resign).

I understand why you struggle with this concept, coming from a country run by former secret service agents, but that is how it works in successful countries.

Sorry, I am not from a country run by former secret agents, unless Dave and the cabinet are actually MI5/MI6 agents. Rory Stewart MP was probably an ex James Bond type.

Dannatt and co. knew they could not resource both campaigns from the outset, by their own account. They still went ahead, with some enthusiasm, democracy does not take away choice of action. I have huge respect for the small number of UK officers who refused to take part in Iraq, demonstrating moral backbones of carbon steel.

I am being told above, that actually the UK military is actually populated by pacifists, doing everything to avoiding preparing for, or executing war.

The evidence speaks otherwise.

[Bluebarge]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

The evidence speaks otherwise.

No. It really doesn't. Please stop peddling this tripe.

Any UK willy-waving that's happened since the UK became a functioning democracy has been instigated by politicians. If you think that the UK is run by its military perhaps you could explain why our armed forces have shrunk so much.

Really, you are making yourself look foolish.