lightsaber wrote:

Unfortunately, the EU won't do much and the USA has lost its appetite for foreign adventures post Afghanistan, in my opinion.

The reality is this is the time for the EU to mobilize. The Ukraine isn't in NATO. That makes it very unlikely the USA will commit.

If WW2 showed us anything, war is required to stop certain leaders.

"Noise and fury signifying nothing."

As noted early in this thread, the Balkins are probably next. In the win/loss columns, all that can be done is an embargo.

My opinion is the Sudetenland references are too close to the mark.

Lightsaber

It makes me nervous. My wife and 22 month old son are in Odessa, Ukraine. In addition to Putin's games along the eastern border of Ukraine, there is a serious outbreak of COVID-19.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

It makes me nervous. My wife and 22 month old son are in Odessa, Ukraine. In addition to Putin's games along the eastern border of Ukraine, there is a serious outbreak of COVID-19.

I can imagine, certainly because of Odessa, although a rough diamond, has been home to some riots as well. Hopefully, your wife and son will be safe and sound back with you.

The UK has said that,on Sunday, it has supplied Ukraine with short-range anti-tank missiles for self-defence and has sent troops to train Ukraine soldiers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60033012

After Russian activity towards Sweden, now this against Finland. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 5#2a81cd2a
About that route: It flew over the three most important military airports in Finland and the fourth was over Finnish air force headquarter. Checking Finnish military or a message?

The route reported so far was Moscow-Murmansk-Moscow. So even if that flight was tanked for a return flight it did not have enough fuel to legally do that amended flight.

A lot is happening by the Russians at the moment. Or maybe the finns have it wrong. Finnish air force is only saying that everything was legal and they don't comment further.

THS214 wrote:

After Russian activity towards Sweden, now this against Finland. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 5#2a81cd2a
About that route: It flew over the three most important military airports in Finland and the fourth was over Finnish air force headquarter. Checking Finnish military or a message?

The route reported so far was Moscow-Murmansk-Moscow. So even if that flight was tanked for a return flight it did not have enough fuel to legally do that amended flight.

A lot is happening by the Russians at the moment. Or maybe the finns have it wrong. Finnish air force is only saying that everything was legal and they don't comment further.

That is an odd flightpath. The Boeing 747-8HV(F), VQ-BRH hasn't have any camera's on board, now has it? Also odd flight level at times.

In Finland it is thought to have been most likely a test flight to test how Finland reacts and officially there has not been reaction. Basically Finland is officially quiet. The way we think is that if you are provoked don't get provoked. That is shown here even we know that it was not a normal flight.

I'm sorry but I just don't believe that anything will happen. This is a massive bluff to achieve concessions or some kind of diplomatic victory to make Russia appear strong on the world stage. Putin is smart enough to know that the element of surprise is lost and any advance on Ukrainian territory would incur heavy casualties that would not be tolerated by the Russian public. He also is smart enough to know that a full scale attack on Ukraine would be a major strategic blunder that would compel countries like Finland and Sweden to move closer to NATO, even joining it. Not to mention the crippling sanctions that would ensue.

My guess is they want water restored to Crimea via the canal that Ukrainian authorities have progressively blocked. Provide guarantees that water will be restored and give the Russians a victory that will allow them to end this whole episode.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... -for-putin

https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-proceeding ... trasbourg/

So have the Germans waken up already? Or do they still think closing nuclear power plants in favour of Russian gas is a good idea?

AeroVega wrote:

So have the Germans waken up already? Or do they still think closing nuclear power plants in favour of Russian gas is a good idea?

Replacing nuclear with Renewables and H2 is a good idea. It is working, it is a solid plan.

However, the transition is a problem from 2020 to 2035, and this is actually what the problem of this conflict might be.

Putin can only offer violence, What he really should do is to modernise Russia, instead of spending everything in the military. In 15 years, no one needs his oil and gas anymore, so that his business model will collapse.

While I strongly disagree with appeasement, we also need to face the reality that Russia is a big neighbour, and we need them as much as they need us. I would prefer to live in peace with Russia.

AeroVega wrote:

So have the Germans waken up already? Or do they still think closing nuclear power plants in favour of Russian gas is a good idea?

Unlike in May '21, they didn't block arms supplies to Ukraine this time, which is an achievement, given their open collusion with Russia.

alberchico wrote:

I any advance on Ukrainian territory would incur heavy casualties that would not be tolerated by the Russian public.

It would. Human life is the cheapest commodity in Russia. All Putin needs is to sell it to the public the right way... e.g. restoration of the USSR in its formě "glory", Ukrainian "fascist" and what not.

L410Turbolet wrote:

AeroVega wrote:

So have the Germans waken up already? Or do they still think closing nuclear power plants in favour of Russian gas is a good idea?

Unlike in May '21, they didn't block arms supplies to Ukraine this time, which is an achievement, given their open collusion with Russia.

alberchico wrote:

I any advance on Ukrainian territory would incur heavy casualties that would not be tolerated by the Russian public.

It would. Human life is the cheapest commodity in Russia. All Putin needs is to sell it to the public the right way... e.g. restoration of the USSR in its formě "glory", Ukrainian "fascist" and what not.

Open collusion is utter b/s. It is true that some parts of the social democrats have not realised the full reality yet, which is a shame. But nevertheless the russians are part of Europe, and you have to deal with them, if you want it or not.

After all, dont forget the russians did leave germany until 1994 (seen retrospectively as Helmut Kohls biggest achievement), and the russians did support German unification. This is something not easy to be forgotten.

I hate appeasement, but hawkish b/s is not helping, either.

TheSonntag wrote:

Open collusion is utter b/s. It is true that some parts of the social democrats have not realised the full reality yet, which is a shame. But nevertheless the russians are part of Europe, and you have to deal with them, if you want it or not.

After all, dont forget the russians did leave germany until 1994 (seen retrospectively as Helmut Kohls biggest achievement), and the russians did support German unification. This is something not easy to be forgotten.

I hate appeasement, but hawkish b/s is not helping, either.

I am not sure about the degree of collusion, whether it is full or partial, but even this time, when the British sent to Ukraine some military supplies Germany refused to let them being delivered through its air space. That's in addition to Angela Merkel personally blocking delivery of anti-drone rifles that Ukraine purchased, not even from Germany. So, you call helping the victim of aggression "hawkishness"? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
And being thankful for supporting unification of Germany is a classic example of the Stockholm syndrome, considering that Russia was the reason why Germany was partitioned in the first place.

Dogman wrote:

[
And being thankful for supporting unification of Germany is a classic example of the Stockholm syndrome, considering that Russia was the reason why Germany was partitioned in the first place.

I agree. Here is a link to news about the British supply planes having to detour around German airspace.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/uk-planes-to ... 49839.html

Well the main reason was that Germany started WW2, having learned nothing from WW1. Unfortunately, this is a mindset you can see again at the russian president, who also cannot accept he lost Cold War 1.

Nevertheless, while I am not that sure about the offical story that the UK simply did not apply for permission in Germany, bear in mind that Germany is massively supporting NATO. Ramstein and Spangdahlem are major US nato bases, so is the Landstuhl Medical Center. Just yesterday several recon planes took off from Germany and flow to Ukraine. Germany also flew a sortie close to Kaliningrad.

The message from Germany is rather clear: We want good relations to Russia, we want no war, but if Russia escalates, Germany is clearly on the western side.

johns624 wrote:

Dogman wrote:

[
And being thankful for supporting unification of Germany is a classic example of the Stockholm syndrome, considering that Russia was the reason why Germany was partitioned in the first place.

I agree. Here is a link to news about the British supply planes having to detour around German airspace.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/uk-planes-to ... 49839.html

I've since learned that the UK never asked for overflight rights, whatever the reason but still stand withe my agreement statement.

johns624 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Dogman wrote:

[
And being thankful for supporting unification of Germany is a classic example of the Stockholm syndrome, considering that Russia was the reason why Germany was partitioned in the first place.

I agree. Here is a link to news about the British supply planes having to detour around German airspace.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/uk-planes-to ... 49839.html

I've since learned that the UK never asked for overflight rights, whatever the reason but still stand withe my agreement statement.

Maybe for operational security? Just avoid the expected, regular routings?
They have continued, as many as 5 flights up to now, that’s a lot of N-LAWs and whatever else they are carrying.

GDB wrote:

that’s a lot of N-LAWs and whatever else they are carrying.

Let's hope the Ukies* put them to good use, if the time comes.
*I'm of Ukrainian descent so I can call them that.
PS--Maybe they can slip a few Stingers in with them.

Perhaps, if the Putin regime would do some move against Ukraine, NATO needs to send out invitations to Sweden, Finland, and Austria to join NATO. That in addition to severe sanctions, preferably to hit the Putin regime and the oligarch basis of the regime.

Dutchy wrote:

Perhaps, if the Putin regime would do some move against Ukraine, NATO needs to send out invitations to Sweden, Finland, and Austria to join NATO. That in addition to severe sanctions, preferably to hit the Putin regime and the oligarch basis of the regime.

President Biden caused controversy in his news conference Wednesday night by stating the obvious: that the many European allies of the United States are not all in agreement at this point about what to do should Russia choose any number of aggressive options toward Ukraine.
...
All agree they should be punishing and severe, but some countries are more wary than others, and all know that such measures will hurt the European economy far more than the American one. That is especially true given high energy prices and the fact that Europe still gets 40 percent of its natural gas and 25 percent of its oil from Russia.


The link is well worth a read. But all the talk of assertiveness isn't serious without an expediciary force Europe lacks. They expect the USA to supply that force and, in my opinion post Afghanistan, the US public will not tolerate being Europe's speed bump.

If Europe had met their NATO obligations to create a defense force, we would have a different conversation. After the Crimea was invaded, a minimum of 3.5% of GDP had to be spent on defense by Europe.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Not to mention Europe's energy policy had zero defense strategy in it. They have, in my opinion, left themselves dependent upon Russia. Oh the irony, Russia is expected to supply 20% of the green energy to the world:
https://qz.com/2113118/how-russia-will- ... urope/amp/

The EU is a global power. This is an interesting test of the structure.

Lightsaber

Russia has announced Air Force and Navy drills. The band is warming up for this dance.

https://apnews.com/article/russia-europ ... 782ff871ca

If Putin is merely positioning the military on the Ukrainian border as a bargaining chip for security guarantees with NATO , it is a costly one. ( Albeit much less than a full scale invasion ) It therefore stands to reason that Putin would soon want a “ return “ on this rather large investment in men , materiel and political capital sooner rather than later. This “ return “ would be at the cost of many thousands of lives , a number perhaps worthy of the sacrifice considering Putin’s fixation with his legacy.
As stated several times by Putin himself , the demise of the USSR was an utterly tragic event in his nation’s history. Reassertion of sovereignty over the Ukraine is an important step in establishing Putin’s legacy. ( More countries to follow ) Either way , Putin’s wish to be remembered as the leader who erased the embarrassment of the loss of the Cold War , something that is deeply and profoundly personal to Vladimir , will echo in the hearts and minds of the Russian people for generations to come.

lightsaber wrote:

The EU is a global power. This is an interesting test of the structure.

Lightsaber

They are an economic power but not a military one. France and Germany want an EU military, instead of NATO, not because it will unite Europe more, but mostly so that they can be the top dogs. With the US and UK gone, they're the bosses. The problem will come when/if that force is ever needed. Everyone will be making excuses why they can't come to the party.

dfwjim1 wrote:

I get the feeling that Putin is not too fearful of economic sanctions at this point. Perhaps if the United States and its NATO allies had inserted ground troops and aircraft in Ukraine last year Russia would have backed off.

Change "United States" to "France and Germany" and "NATO" to "EU military" and I'd agree with you. Time to put up or shut up. Macron needs to put on his big-boy pants.

johns624 wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

I get the feeling that Putin is not too fearful of economic sanctions at this point. Perhaps if the United States and its NATO allies had inserted ground troops and aircraft in Ukraine last year Russia would have backed off.

Change "United States" to "France and Germany" and "NATO" to "EU military" and I'd agree with you. Time to put up or shut up. Macron needs to put on his big-boy pants.

I agree. Legally, this is an EU issue. Any country outside of NATO is on their own. While the USA will supply weapons and advisors, it would be silly of the USA to go to war to defend countries that won't even meet NATO obligations.

How can the EU put on the big boy pants without:
1. A deployable military (expediciary force) with great logistics.
2. A strategic energy policy designed to thrive without Russian energy.

Two posts of mine ago had links on this.

This isn't, yet, a NATO issue. We (USA) should help the EU, but the EU owns this issue.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

all the talk of assertiveness isn't serious without an expediciary force Europe lacks. They expect the USA to supply that force and, in my opinion post Afghanistan, the US public will not tolerate being Europe's speed bump.

If Europe had met their NATO obligations to create a defense force, we would have a different conversation. After the Crimea was invaded, a minimum of 3.5% of GDP had to be spent on defense by Europe.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Not to mention Europe's energy policy had zero defense strategy in it. They have, in my opinion, left themselves dependent upon Russia. Oh the irony, Russia is expected to supply 20% of the green energy to the world:
https://qz.com/2113118/how-russia-will- ... urope/amp/

The EU is a global power. This is an interesting test of the structure.

Lightsaber

While I mostly agree with your post couple things. You should not write Europe, but NATO European members, EU and for example with energy any independent country. Thanks.

johns624 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The EU is a global power. This is an interesting test of the structure.

Lightsaber

They are an economic power but not a military one. France and Germany want an EU military, instead of NATO, not because it will unite Europe more, but mostly so that they can be the top dogs. With the US and UK gone, they're the bosses. The problem will come when/if that force is ever needed. Everyone will be making excuses why they can't come to the party.

gross simplification to render it complete and utter bull. I would be in favor of an integrated EU army, more unity, and a better bang for the Euro. Most EU members are NATO members, article five has been called only once and the EU did their part.
America just outspends tenfold the top 1 combined.

THS214 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

all the talk of assertiveness isn't serious without an expediciary force Europe lacks. They expect the USA to supply that force and, in my opinion post Afghanistan, the US public will not tolerate being Europe's speed bump.

If Europe had met their NATO obligations to create a defense force, we would have a different conversation. After the Crimea was invaded, a minimum of 3.5% of GDP had to be spent on defense by Europe.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... by-country

Not to mention Europe's energy policy had zero defense strategy in it. They have, in my opinion, left themselves dependent upon Russia. Oh the irony, Russia is expected to supply 20% of the green energy to the world:
https://qz.com/2113118/how-russia-will- ... urope/amp/

The EU is a global power. This is an interesting test of the structure.

Lightsaber

While I mostly agree with your post couple things. You should not write Europe, but NATO European members, EU and for example with energy any independent country. Thanks.

You raise some interesting points, lightsabar. Although I disagree with the 3,5% number, why would the EU members want that? More integration would be by far a better idea. 2%-norm will be met in the next few years and then we, as an EU, will outspend most of the potential adversaries. Economic power is much more useful, although it needs to be backed up by force in last resort.

But I agree the EU is a global power and should do more with geopolitics.

Dutchy wrote:

johns624 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

The EU is a global power. This is an interesting test of the structure.

Lightsaber

They are an economic power but not a military one. France and Germany want an EU military, instead of NATO, not because it will unite Europe more, but mostly so that they can be the top dogs. With the US and UK gone, they're the bosses. The problem will come when/if that force is ever needed. Everyone will be making excuses why they can't come to the party.

gross simplification to render it complete and utter bull. I would be in favor of an integrated EU army, more unity, and a better bang for the Euro. Most EU members are NATO members, article five has been called only once and the EU did their part.
America just outspends tenfold the top 1 combined.

You're the one always saying the US is the big, bad bully that always sticks its nose where it doesn't belong. Okay, we'll stay home. You deal with it. Some of the EU did their part. Others, not so much. Who did much of the heavy lifting in the Balkans--the UK and US, two of the countries the furthest away from the problem.

Dutchy wrote:

[
More integration would be by far a better idea. 2%-norm will be met in the next few years and then we, as an EU, will outspend most of the potential adversaries. Economic power is much more useful, although it needs to be backed up by force in last resort.

I keep hearing how all these countries will reach 2% however many years down the road. That's because the goal keeps getting kicked down the road. Two percent is not the goal; it's a minimum. How's that EU "economic power" worked so far?

johns624 wrote:

You're the one always saying the US is the big, bad bully that always sticks its nose where it doesn't belong. Okay, we'll stay home. You deal with it. Some of the EU did their part. Others, not so much. Who did much of the heavy lifting in the Balkans--the UK and US, two of the countries the furthest away from the problem.

I can't see that Dutchy wrote like that. Criticism is something else than being against. You have strong opinions and here you are wrong. EU is not a military organisation. For Finland the real number for GDP for military is 2,5-3,5% because of conscription. Finland is not a member of NATO or EU military. US GDP for military was 3,2% in 2019. I did that conscription and I lost a year without pay. Got the meal and some money. In today's money that was like 5 dollars a day or 150 dollars a month. I think that US military also often provide meal for soldiers. Make those conscription with real salary (compered to US) and you can see the difference. If you do the service once you have an occupation (like doctor or lawyer) and you do that service with almost the same pay (maybe 200 dollars a month after booth camp) and doctors were initially trained for combat medicine but worked at least four months as doctors without pay. Back when I served we had a doctor and when we had a march training he was there without weapon and backpack etc. but he had some medical staff. He did doctors job without pay on those training.

lightsaber wrote:

This isn't, yet, a NATO issue. We (USA) should help the EU, but the EU owns this issue.

Lightsaber

I just want to remind you, and the other people here who say that America should stay away and let Europe to sort this out: the reason why the US got involved in the first play is the Budapest memorandum. The US signed it and the UK signed it, together with Ukraine and Russia. The EU did not signed it, though France signalled its support of it. If the US abandons Ukraine in its conflict with Russia then any country that wold manage to create or get a hold on nuclear weapons will never give them up, no matter what assurances they will be offered. It fact, I think that it is already too late. But if the US will help Ukraine to get its territories back at least it will have an argument. Otherwise there is not point to even start negotiating.

Ukraine giving up nukes, and then seeing Russia march in without the rest of the world really caring that much will tell North Korea and any other country to NEVER EVER give up nukes. Suddenly the world gets a lot more dangerous with countries each having a distinctly independently minded view of military and foreign policy

THS214 wrote:

I can't see that Dutchy wrote like that. Criticism is something else than being against. You have strong opinions and here you are wrong. EU is not a military organisation. For Finland the real number for GDP for military is 2,5-3,5% because of conscription. Finland is not a member of NATO or EU military.

1. I wasn't talking about this thread. He has a history of posting about how terrible the US is and what a bully it is.
2. I know that the EU isn't a military organization. France and Germany (especially France) want to make it one, though. Now's their chance to show everyone how it works.
3. Here's some figures that show you why I say what I say.
The Netherlands has over three times the population and GDP as Finland, yet their air force has fewer fighter planes than Finland. While Finland has a few tank battalions, Netherlands has none. They lease a company's worth from the Germans. I picked those two countries because you seem to be from Finland. I've visited there and loved the people. They know who their threat is. Some other countries don't because there are other countries between them and the major threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... P_(nominal)#:~:text=List%20of%20nominal%20GDP%20for%20European%20countries%20in,%20%202%2C073.971%20%2016%20more%20rows%20
https://www.worldometers.info/populatio ... opulation/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Net ... _inventory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... of_Finland

johns624 wrote:

I've visited there and loved the people. They know who their threat is. Some other countries don't because there are other countries between them and the major threat.

You keep harping on military spending, but you can’t compare one on one. For instance, in the US the army corps of engineers does flood defences. In the Netherlands that is a civil operation. If you where to throw in the Dutch flood defence budget with the military budget, we’d make the 2% easily. We’d probably be one of the bigger “military” spenders.

Above all, the Netherlands do know their threat. It’s water first, Russia second.

And it is not just flood defences that inflate US expenses. The same goes for other expenses that are civil here but military in the US. For instance veteran healthcare, veteran pensions. Both big ticket expenses.

Let’s be honest here. The US only cares for the 2% target because they want to sell weapons. Nothing more, nothing less.

Same applies for Germany. Our infrastructure is vital for any military operation in Europe, yet mostly civil.
I am not saying that I agree with SPD politics all the time, but lets face it, Germany is supporting NATO and EU on so many fields. I sincerely hope we get a more robust appearance, too, but our rather pacifistic foreign policy is not necessarily wrong.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Pete - not even close. The US has approx 20 times the population of the Netherlands.

Obviously I was talking about % of GDP, not a dollar/euro value.
The % of GDP is after all the agreed upon metric amongst NATO members.

Thread has drifted off topic and is now locked