╌>

NATO's new map: Sweden officially joins alliance in blow to Russia

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  kavika  •  one month ago  •  93 comments

NATO's new map: Sweden officially joins alliance in blow to Russia

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T





Data:   NATO ; Map: Axios Visuals

Sweden   officially joined   NATO on Thursday, becoming its   32nd member .

Why it matters:   The nordic nation's accession to the alliance marks another major blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has claimed that Moscow invaded Ukraine in hopes of blocking the alliance's   eastward expansion .


  • Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson handed U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken the final documentation in Washington, D.C., on Thursday to make the move official.
  • "Thank you all Allies for welcoming us as the 32nd member," Kristersson said in a   post on X . "We will strive for unity, solidarity and burden-sharing, and will fully adhere to the Washington Treaty values: freedom, democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. Stronger together."

Flashback:   Galvanized by Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO in May 2022.

  • Finland officially   joined the alliance   last April, which more than doubled NATO's borders with Russia.

Zoom in:   The two Nordic states fortify NATO's northern flank and reduces the possibility of the Baltic states being isolated from other members if a military conflict were to erupt with Russia.


  • Currently, the only land corridor between the Baltic states and the rest of Europe is the strategic territory known as the   Suwałki Gap , which separates the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad from Belarus, which forms a union state with Moscow.
  • With Finland's and Sweden's memberships, NATO now borders most of the the Baltic Sea, potentially allowing supplies and reinforcements to instead arrive to the Baltic states by sea if war broke out and the gap collapsed.

Catch up quick:   Hungary ratified Sweden's accession   in February after delaying its decision for more than 18 months.

  • Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, widely seen as the most   pro-Russian   leader in the European Union, ultimately endorsed the accession after Sweden agreed to send Hungary   fighter jets .
  • That was Sweden's last hurdle to membership, as joining requires unanimous approval from all NATO countries.

Go deeper:   Yellen says House GOP delay on Ukraine aid is "a gift to Putin"


Red Box Rules

OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT WARNING.


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Kavika     one month ago

Putin got a surprise, it's known as unintended consequences.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @1    one month ago

sweden builds some impressive military hardware.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  devangelical @1.1    one month ago
sweden builds some impressive military hardware

They built there own jet fighters, the Gripen and it was built specially to fight the Russians, and it requires a very short runway for takeoff and landings and can land on highways as well.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @1.1.1    one month ago

Historically, SAAB jet aircraft designs have almost always been ahead of their time. The Draken and the Viggen are two great examples. Swedish fighter aircraft are specifically designed to make extensive use of Sweden's road/highway system as runways if their airbases are attacked. Russia is fully aware of this and it makes them nervous.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.2    one month ago
Russia is fully aware of this and it makes them nervous.

no wonder putin's top US agent in mar-a-lago florida is pushing so hard to exit nato

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
2  Mark in Wyoming     one month ago

Those in the Kremlin will likely complain that this violates some neutrality pact that was understood.

A dutch girl I knew back in the 80s family said it best I think, better NATO missiles in the back yard than a Russian in your kitchen.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Kavika     one month ago
A dutch girl I knew back in the 80s family said it best I think, better NATO missiles in the back yard than a Russian in your kitchen.

Excellent saying.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
4  seeder  Kavika     one month ago

Sweden's new defense spending budget shows that they will be spending 2.1% of their GDP and the other new member, Finland will be at 2.4% of GDP.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5  TᵢG    one month ago
Galvanized by Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO in May 2022.

Putin has lost.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  TᵢG @5    one month ago

Putin may have lost, but you can bet a dollar to a donut he will not go down easy and a lot of innocent blood will probably be spilled on his account in the process.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.1.1  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1    one month ago

Putin has a couple aces in the hole,one everyone is concerned about, nuclear capability.

The other which so far only the Germans have mentioned is the other two parts of the NBC triad, the use of biological and chemical weapons on opposing forces.

I think those two would be the more likely to be used before the nuclear option is used.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.1.1    one month ago

Agreed.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
5.2  seeder  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @5    one month ago

Without a doubt he did, T,G. Now we'll see what is reaction is.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.3  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @5    one month ago

Lost what?

Seriously, how can anyone keep up the pretense that Russia is a threat to Europe? Outside of a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons they have jack shit of nothing. Which is the only reason the US isn't rolling directly into Moscow- with NATO along for the free ride.

Sweden and Finland joining NATO does jack shit of nothing to end the war in Ukraine- it just shows Russia they have to now win at all costs. Again, Russia has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire planet several times over. Keep poking the bear to see how long it takes Putin to use them.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.3.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @5.3    one month ago
Lost what?

His big game is to reclaim the domain of the former USSR.

Seriously, how can anyone keep up the pretense that Russia is a threat to Europe?

What does this question have to do with my post?   I made no such claim.   But, in response, Putin is trying to expand Russia by consuming neighbors.   That is a threat by any definition.   How can you possibly not see this?   Even if Putin ends up in retreat (or dead), you do not recognize the damage that he has done?   You do not see inflicting such carnage as a threat to peace??

Sweden and Finland joining NATO does jack shit of nothing to end the war in Ukraine- ...

Did someone claim this??    Sweden and Finland joining NATO is in part a consequence of Putin's actions.   He wants NATO to be diminished, not expanded.   He just lost the big game.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
6  Robert in Ohio    one month ago

NATO can regain its credibility by immediately enshrining Ukraine as a member of NATO and implementing Article 5 provisions to force Putin out of the Ukraine immediately and to hold him responsible for the devastation is unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation has caused.

But on a more serious note - we would never force that to happen as it is easier to pour money into a toilet bowl knowing that Putin will ultimately keep much of the territory that he has occupied and we can wonder what is next.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1  evilone  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6    one month ago
NATO can regain its credibility by immediately enshrining Ukraine as a member of NATO and implementing Article 5...

Yes, that would be great, but it's not going to happen. Hungry & Turkey had to be bullied to let Finland and Sweden in. They are too friendly with Russia to actually go to war. Not to mention none of the small Balkan countries want to be the new front line.

... it is easier to pour money into a toilet bowl knowing that Putin will ultimately keep much of the territory that he has occupied ...

There is less risk to American military that way, but Putin has overplayed his hand. Had he moved and then settled in the East he might have brokered for peace and just stayed there, but he didn't and now risks losing everything including Crimea. What's going on in Moldova has all the NATO Balkan countries nervous. 

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Robert in Ohio  replied to  evilone @6.1    one month ago
Yes, that would be great, but it's not going to happen. Hungry & Turkey had to be bullied to let Finland and Sweden in. They are too friendly with Russia to actually go to war. Not to mention none of the small Balkan countries want to be the new front line.

Then perhaps we should step out of NATO and "let Europe be Europe" and figure out things for themselves.

That is sarcasm for the uneducated, but it should be considered as an option.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  evilone @6.1    one month ago

Moldavia is of concern because Moscow issued a hollow threat because they are making ovetures to joining the EU nothing about joining NATO, Moscow is losing the influence it had in the region.

The state of Transnista, is one the Russians can do nothing about, especially while being bogged down in Ukraine,they have neither the logistical nor mobility ability to project any type of military force on that front in the needed numbers.

One simply has to ask oneself how great and mighty has the Russians proven to be so far without the resources of the former USSR at their biding.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  evilone @6.1    one month ago

It's a safe bet that in any conflict involving NATO and Russia, Turkey and Hungary will stay "neutral" or flat out side with Russia instead.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.4  evilone  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.1.1    one month ago
Then perhaps we should step out of NATO and "let Europe be Europe" and figure out things for themselves.

I know you're being facetious, but just a month ago Russia was flying military aircraft as close as 500 feet from OUR airspace. 

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) said that it had detected four Russian military aircraft operating in the Alaska Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ). "The Russian aircraft remained in international airspace and did not enter American or Canadian sovereign airspace," NORAD said in a statement. President Vladimir Putin in 2007 revived the Soviet-era practice of sending strategic bombers on regular patrols beyond Russia's borders.
 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.5  evilone  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.2    one month ago
The state of Transnista, is one the Russians can do nothing about, especially while being bogged down in Ukraine, they have neither the logistical nor mobility ability to project any type of military force on that front in the needed numbers.

The agitators in Transnista will continue their work, but it's true the plan was for Russia to gain enough ground in Ukraine to use Transnista as a resupply route. That didn't work out.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.6  evilone  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.3    one month ago
It's a safe bet that in any conflict involving NATO and Russia, Turkey and Hungary will stay "neutral" or flat out side with Russia instead.

Maybe. Hungary wants EU status now and I think I read (I may be wrong) that it was part of the deal to induct Sweden. Turkey just purchased a shit ton of US fighter jets too. 

I'm not saying your are wrong. I'm saying there are a lot of shifting variable when it comes to this whole dynamic.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  evilone @6.1.6    one month ago

Yes they did purchase fighter jets as in the F-16, but they still did not and will not get the F-35's. And yes, in that part of the world there are always shifting variables in one form or another.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.8  George  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.7    one month ago

The prime minister of Hungary is coming to visit the US......And will be meeting with Trump and not President Biden. Trump should refuse this meeting. but one has to wonder why the Prime Minister is making that choice.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.9  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.1.1    one month ago

Sarcasm aside.

I can't say what the US current percentage of GDP is, but what would happen if the US idled the spending back to the NATO minimum of 2%?

But what would that accomplish?

No need to get out of NATO in my view, if all one has to do is decrease how much is spent, which unless I am wrong is currently more than the minimum required.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.10  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  evilone @6.1.6    one month ago

I read a couple days ago that Turkey's F 35 deal has been put on hold for the time being.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  George @6.1.8    one month ago

He could just be hedging his bets that Trump will be who he has to deal with come January 2025.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.12  evilone  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.10    one month ago
I read a couple days ago that Turkey's F 35 deal has been put on hold for the time being.

That's interesting. That didn't cross my newsfeed. I've been busy though so I may have just missed it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1.13  JohnRussell  replied to  George @6.1.8    one month ago

What is there to wonder about?  Orban is MAGA.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
6.1.14  George  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.13    one month ago

A world leader is saying Joe isn't worth his time, and to you, anybody right of Che' is MAGA.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.9    one month ago

We spend around 3.6% of GDP on NATO==almost twice what any other country does. 

We spend round $860 billion while the rest of Europe and Canada total together about $404 billion.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.16  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.15    one month ago

No, NATO'S entire budget is 2.5 billion...

Our entire military budget is not NATO!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.16    one month ago

You don't know what you are talking about.

As of 2023, the United States allocates approximately 3.49% of its GDP for defense, which amounts to a staggering $860 billion1. In comparison, European allies and Canada together contribute roughly $404 billion, which is almost twice as much as their combined spending2. The U.S. contribution constitutes two-thirds of the total NATO defense expenditures2. NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a military and political alliance comprising 30 member countries. These nations have pledged to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense by 2025. However, in 2021, only ten countries met this threshold1

Here is the truth to inform you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.18  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.16    one month ago
No, NATO'S entire budget is 2.5 billion...

Best get on the phone and tell them you have found a massive accounting error.

NATO is resourced through the direct and indirect contributions of its members. NATO’s common funds are composed of direct contributions to collective budgets and programmes, which equate to only 0.3% of total Allied defence spending (around EUR 3.3 billion for 2023). These funds enable NATO to deliver capabilities and run the entirety of the Organization and its military commands.
 
 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.19  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.17    one month ago

Tex I'm going to play devil's advocate here.

You state total defense spending , but the US has other defense obligations other than NATO.

So to be fair , not all that funding is going to Europe, some is going to the pacific , middle east and other world theaters of operation.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.19    one month ago

You are correct, but the US does supply about 2/3 of NATO budget--more than all others combined.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.21  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.17    one month ago

The entire US military budget is not dedicated to NATO. You are wrong...

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.21    one month ago

I did not claim the entire defense budget was spent on NATO, read my words.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.23  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.22    one month ago

Yes you did Tex when you said in your comment #6.1.15 that "We (the US)spend around 3.6% of GDP on NATO " ...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.24  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.2    one month ago

France just signed an defence agreement with Moldova.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.25  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.19    one month ago

See comment 6.3 for the contributions by the US, EU and separate countries. 

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.26  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  evilone @6.1.5    one month ago

From what read either yesterday or the day before, the seperatist are kind of shit out of luck, seems if what I read is true, France and Moldavia have a defense agreement in place now.

So if they get froggy, France can likely assist Moldavia outside the auspices of NATO.

Of course the powers that be in the Kremlin won't like that, but then again France is a nuclear power as well.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.27  evilone  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.26    one month ago
Of course the powers that be in the Kremlin won't like that, but then again France is a nuclear power as well.

Putin is kinda shitting the bed here in his grand plan to reclaim the glory of the old Republic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @6.1.23    one month ago

you are right, my mistake.

but we still supply about 2/3 of NATO's budget.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.29  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  evilone @6.1.27    one month ago

In my view , I can't really tell which old republic he is thinking of.

 Is it the old Soviet model or the historic tsarist model?

He goes back and forth referencing both, and in my view is stuck in either a stalinist or mongol conquest style of warfare.

Problem I see using that, is he doesn't have the vassal states to draw manpower from to sustain that type of warfare, eventually he will have to resort to conscripting and mobilizing , the protected Russian classes of the oligarchies.

The one country no one's mentioned is Belarus, I'm betting they are sitting there in the middle like the kid on the bus in south park thinking, I'm in danger...

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
6.1.30  Robert in Ohio  replied to  JBB @6.1.16    one month ago

jbb

Nato's annual budget and programmes come to about €3.3bn (£2.8bn; $3.5bn) overall, and  there's an agreed cost sharing formula to pay for the running of things such as:  

  • civilian staff and administrative costs of Nato headquarters
  • joint operations, strategic commands, radar and early warning systems, training and liaison
  • defence communications systems, airfields, harbours and fuel supplies

The cost sharing is based on national income. These are the contributions of the top eight donors.

For the period from 2021-2024, the biggest two contributors to this will be the US and Germany, each paying just over 16%.

The US used to pay more than 22% of these running costs.

But a new payment formula was agreed in 2019 to address complaints by the Trump administration about the burden to the US of supporting the alliance.

How much do Nato members spend on defence? (bbc.com)

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.1.31  evilone  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.29    one month ago
In my view , I can't really tell which old republic he is thinking of.

You are correct. He can't seem to make up his mind except he wants something of a lasting legacy.

Problem I see using that, is he doesn't have the vassal states to draw manpower from to sustain that type of warfare, eventually he will have to resort to conscripting and mobilizing , the protected Russian classes of the oligarchies.

I just read this article - 

India said it had uncovered a "major human trafficking network" which lured young men to Russia with the promise of jobs only to force them to fight in the war in Ukraine.

I don't know how Russia has lasted this long with the casualty reports we've seen so far. It will have an impact on Russian culture for a couple of generations. 

The one country no one's mentioned is Belarus, I'm betting they are sitting there in the middle like the kid on the bus in south park thinking, I'm in danger...

Lukashenko is busy fending off a rebellion himself while Latvia is strengthening it's borders. Several EU countries are imposing more sanctions on Belarus too.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
6.1.32  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.28    one month ago

Not your mistake. 

The volume of US defence expenditure represents approximately two thirds of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole. However, this is not the amount that the United States contributes to the operational running of NATO, which is shared with all Allies according to the principle of common funding.

The spending is on defense programs by the US, NOT a "contribution" to the organization.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.33  seeder  Kavika   replied to  George @6.1.8    one month ago
but one has to wonder why the Prime Minister is making that choice.

He wants Trump to win which he has stated on many occasions and if Trump wins he will stop supporting Ukraine, which I'm sure that Trump would he and Trump are of the same mind and at the moment Obreon is facing a lot of problems at home. Also, the RW Republicans have held a couple of gatherings in Hungry.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1.34  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.10    one month ago

My understanding is that is contingent upon Turkey giving up the Russian missile systems they got, but I doubt that will happen.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.35  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Ed-NavDoc @6.1.34    one month ago

Correct, it's the S 400 air defense system of the Russians.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
6.1.36  Gsquared  replied to  George @6.1.14    one month ago

That's a ridiculous comment.  Trump is constantly praising Orban for being a strongman autocrat.  Orban is one of the lunatic fringe right wing's favorites.  

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.37  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  evilone @6.1.31    one month ago

I read that as well, seems the kremlin has also been recruiting mercs with citizenship and promises of some impressive cash payments. Even heard they are thinking of starting a bounty system, for destroyed equipment.

Also read they are conscripting in eastern Russia and an extremely high rate, so much so that some in china are calling for that country to allow mongolians of chinese decent to be allowed to cross the border, it's getting interesting , but still in such a state of flux it is hard to predict.

I have read that we are not seeing more georgians because the Georgian troops are needed to keep an uprising from happening there,  and dollars to doughnuts, once the lower classes that are paying with lives get fed up, it's going to look like czarist Russia during WW1 and Lenin and his bolshiviks.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.1.38  Tessylo  replied to  George @6.1.8    one month ago

The former 'president' is obviously selling secrets to Orban.  How else did he come up with half a billion dollars?

The former 'president' turd invited Orban to Mar-A-Lardo.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Robert in Ohio @6    one month ago

NATO would have to change its rules about admitting new members that are already in border conflicts as well.

Yesterday's missle attack while the Greek PM was visiting Odessa, reports vary but missiles hit anywhere from 150-500 meters from him, could have started an Art 5 incident.

Turkey and Hungary are both being eyed with suspicion , but other members want them in the group and organization.

I am enjoying reading some of the Russian troll farms output on the situation, makes this place seem like a English summer garden tea party.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.3  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Robert in Ohio @6    one month ago

I don't see it as pouring money into a toilet bowl at all. The consequence if Ukraine didn't fight back and NATO didn't support them is that Russia would now have Ukraine, Moldova and probably the Baltic states. Putin wants to re-establish the old Russian empire, and without giving him a bloody nose which Ukraine has done we would be much closer to American boots on the ground. Russian invasion of Ukraine has had some upsides, one is itt woke up Europe and they are now rearming and not looking at Russia as a ''friend'' they have weened themselves off Russian oil, Finland and Sweden are now members of NATO. From the start of the war, the EU countries have given over $80 billion to Ukraine and the US $68 billion. Our DOD budget is $800 billion per year so for less than 10% of one year's budget and no American lives lost Russia has been shown to be a paper tiger with horrible leadership and US and European weapons have shown themselves to be far superior to Russian weapons. Ukraine besides showing that they can and will fight against overwhelming odds with a missmash of weapons, no navy, and a tiny airforce has stopped the Russians in their tracks. If I wanted an ally, Ukraine would be at he top of the list.

28489.jpeg

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
6.3.1  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Kavika @6.3    one month ago

Ukraine will never expel the Russians on their own.  Unless the Russians lose interest or change leadership and withdraw they will eventually keep whatever territory they want unless NATO (i.e. the U.S.) intervenes on the side of Ukraine.

We are contributing money and weapons and prolonging the conflict - as thousands continue to die.

I do not see that scenario changing anytime soon

We need to be in or out

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.3.2  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.3.1    one month ago
We are contributing money and weapons and prolonging the conflict - as thousands continue to die.

At the moment we are contributing nothing. Do you think that thousands wouldn't die if they didn't defend themselves, it would simply be another Chechnya a bombed-out landscape with 40 million pow's and Russians moving into Moldova, Georgia the Baltic states, and the Balkans.

Believe it when Putin tells you what he wants to do.

We need to be in or out

We need to me IN.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.3.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @6.3.2    one month ago

Way I see it , back when Ukraine disarmed and gave up their nukes, two states guaranteed their sovereignty and protection, one of them reneged and invaded, this country doesn't have to follow the others path of reneging.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6.3.1    one month ago

Not a humanitarian view at all.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.4  Ronin2  replied to  Robert in Ohio @6    one month ago
NATO can regain its credibility by immediately enshrining Ukraine as a member of NATO and implementing Article 5 provisions to force Putin out of the Ukraine immediately and to hold him responsible for the devastation is unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation has caused.

The second that happens WWIII starts with full nuclear arsenals.

Seriously, why does everyone keep forgetting Russia has a nuclear arsenal and a completely ruthless individual in charge that will use them?

I hope Brandon and the NATO crew remember that.

Of course they have completely forgotten China is the #1 threat in the world; so all bets are off.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7  seeder  Kavika     one month ago

Another thing to look at and understand is that the US with 330 million people has military commitments worldwide not just in Europe. The 2% of GDP agreement between NATO countries has to be looked at this way, Denmark with a population of less than six million spends 1.4% of it's GDP in 2022 on the military. Denmark does not have worldwide bases so the majority of its spending is right in the NATO. Yet, Denmark has ordered new F-35 from the US a dozen of the finest mobile artillery the Challenger and donated them to Ukraine along with all its arty ammo. When Denmark responded to 9/11 they were one of the first in line and fought in some of the toughest areas suffering many casualties. 

There is an old saying, figures lie and liars figure.

The US spends 3.5% of its GDP on defense and that is world wide not just NATO

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Kavika @7    one month ago
When Denmark responded to 9/11 they were one of the first in line and fought in some of the toughest areas suffering many casualties. 

I don’t remember them sending troops.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.1.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @7.1    one month ago
I don’t remember them sending troops.

You have a bad memory.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
7.1.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Kavika @7.1.1    one month ago

Yes, that happens as I age.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
7.2  Robert in Ohio  replied to  Kavika @7    one month ago

U.S. defense outlays and forecast as a percentage of GDP 2000-2033

Published by   Statista Research Department ,   Nov 3, 2023
  The statistic represents the U.S. defense outlays from 2000 to 2022 with an additional forecast from 2023 to 2033, as a percentage of the gross domestic product. Defense outlays amounted to 746 billion U.S. dollars in 2022, which was about three percent of the U.S. GDP. The forecast predicts an increase in defense outlays up to 1.1 trillion U.S. dollars by 2033, which would be about 2.8 percent of U.S. GDP.
 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
7.2.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Robert in Ohio @7.2    one month ago

Good chart 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.3  Ronin2  replied to  Kavika @7    one month ago

Please answer this. Do you really think the US needed NATO, or any other country for that matter, help in Afghanistan?

Maybe if Bush Jr has stuck with his "go it alone" mentality the US would never have moved past search and destroy into nation building.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  seeder  Kavika     one month ago

In the Pacific in addition to adding to our capabilities on Guam we are now reopening our airbase on Tinian that is where the B 29's of WWII bombed Japan from, the US abandoned them after WWII, it will take $20 million just to get the runways back in shape and another $21 million for a lease on the land, this does not include any infrastructure, housing etc.

We spend a lot of money worldwide, is it worth it, I believe that it is since we are defending ourselfs as the basic concept and no wars fought on American soil. 3.5% of our GDP is not overwhelming but I would like to see better use of the money, such as not funding weapon systems the miliary doesn't want because some congressman has a factory in his district.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
8.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago
We spend a lot of money worldwide, is it worth it, I believe that it is since we are defending ourselfs as the basic concept and no wars fought on American soil.

simple logic for republicans is to provide for the defense of democracy over there now, or risk being perceived as russian collaborators here if they lose.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @8.1    one month ago

Russian collaboration is an invention of the left.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.2    one month ago

Sorry, but I will never, EVER be naive enough to think that the Russians "infiltrated" places where plenty of foolish Democrats have claimed they are welcome and the GOP is complicit in some way..

How would that make sense?

Both things can not be correct.

Didn't some Chinese dude "infiltrate" a Democratic Senator's staff a few years back?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.1.4  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.3    one month ago
Sorry, but I will never, EVER be naive enough to think that the Russians "infiltrated" places where plenty of foolish Democrats have claimed they are welcome

May of 2017.

Photos of Trump's closed-door meeting with Russian officials raise eyebrows - CBS News

Reports: Trump Gave Classified Info To Russians During White House Visit : NPR

Didn't get any better with the internet, Twitter X is still fighting Kremlin trolls and bots 

How Kremlin accounts manipulate Twitter (bbc.com)

When Facebook and Instagram were successful fighting the Russians they were banned

Russia bans Facebook and Instagram under ‘extremism’ law | Russia | The Guardian

and in 2018 in spite of overwhelming evidence of Russian cyberattacks Trump blames China or the media...

The riddle of Trump’s relationship with Russia | CNN

Sorry but I will never be naive enough to think that there's no collaboration more than a bromance going on between Trump and Putin.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.4    one month ago
Sorry but I will never be naive enough to think that there's no collaboration more than a bromance going on between Trump and Putin.

Yes, I know many people still believe all the Russia conspiracy theories.

Isn't it just amazing that the very best lawyers Democratic money could buy, a willing, largely complaint media, and a whole political machine behind them, the Biden Justice Department has failed to file a case for any of it?

Trump's a dumbass, but let's get serious about this and at least stick to what he has been charged with.

And if Trump was spying, by, God, try him and fry him for all I care.

And then let's find out why this was dragged out for so long in the face of all that overwhelming "evidence".

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.2    one month ago

The traitor hosted Orban at Mar-a-Lardo - I wonder how many classified top secrets he sold him?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.6    one month ago

Maybe half a billions worth?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
8.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @8.1.6    one month ago

I have as much evidence he sold zero as you do he sold any.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  Split Personality @8.1.4    one month ago

Please, when it comes to Chinese spies no one is more complicit than Democrats.

[ Deleted ]

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.2  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago

We also quietly reopened Clark AFB in the Philippines. Initial work is concentrating on refurbishing the surviving infrastructure .

The Korean company running the Subick Bay shipyard quietly withdrew and sold it's interests to a US shipbuilder with ties to the US Navy.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8.2.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  Split Personality @8.2    one month ago

The US is expanding in the Pacific. Recently we signed an agreement with PNG (New Guinea) for bases in their country in an emergency situation.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.2.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Split Personality @8.2    one month ago

Lol, about the only parts of Clark the Filipinos didn't some how manage to walk off with was the flight line and I think I heard they even managed to make some of that disappear.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @8.2.2    one month ago

I have a subcontractor that is a few hours away with family in the Clark and Subic areas who were displaced when we left and are none too happy that are "sneaking back in" with no government announcements.

They think Biden is just doing it to annoy China.

Most of Clark collapsed from the volcano and all metal disappeared over time,  Only a few windowless shells were left to be refurbished and the scale will remain small for the present.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
8.2.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Split Personality @8.2.3    one month ago

Same thing happened when Mt Pinatubo blew at Cubi Point and NCSP San Miguel where I was stationed from 1984 through 1987. Housing areas at San Miguel had anything the volcanic ash didn't not destroy was looted by the locals. Philippines Navy now uses it as a training base but only a about a quarter is used.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8.2.5  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @8.2.1    one month ago

Biden.  Building bridges, not tearing them down.

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
8.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Kavika @8    one month ago

Tinian, my old squadrons wartime overseas base.

There is none finer than a ... er

You can fill in the last

Defensor Vindex

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9  Vic Eldred    one month ago

It is amazing when one remembers where this all started at the end of WWII. At that time most of eastern Europe and half of Germany was firmly under the control of the Soviet Union. It was referred to as the "Iron Curtain."

Over time with the creation of NATO, radio free Europe, the policy of President Reagan and the reforms of Mikhail Gorbachev, the Iron Curtain collapsed and many of Russia's most important regions are no longer even part of Russia anymore. Today it is NATO that is right on Russia's diminished border.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
9.2  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    one month ago
It is amazing when one remembers where this all started at the end of WWII.

Well ignoring the history of mankind and warfare is a bit premature.

The earliest war was in 3400 BC in the ME

First details of wars in China started in 1046 BC

Depending on the sources there were almost 10,000 wars in Europe alone.

From 830 AD to present Russia has started or participated in 189 "wars".

Spain, France and Hungary lead the list with the most wars in Europe.

The problem is inside the people.

Always has been.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Junior Expert
9.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Split Personality @9.2    one month ago
The earliest war was in 3400 BC in the ME

Damn that religion.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Split Personality @9.2    one month ago

You missed the point.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
9.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.2.2    one month ago

I believe it was you that missed the point.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
9.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9.2.1    one month ago

Which religion?  None of todays religions were around then.

The Sumerians were polytheistic. They fought over land, trade routes and access to water.

 
 

Who is online









59 visitors