Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump's NATO Problem...Abandoning Allies?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Massena View Post

    Keep telling yourself that.
    Where are your proofs that 10 US/British divisions could stop a Soviet attack in 1957 ?

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Massena View Post

      Some former Warsaw Pact/Communist/USSR satellite nations are already part of NATO, such as Poland, Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, and Slovenia.
      And ,except Poland, none of them has any military significence .

      Comment


      • #33
        Speaking about abandoning allies, we should include the example of Ukraine.

        Even though it is not technically an ally, it is still protected by agreements that the US signed in 1994 in order to remove the nuclear weapons which were staged there (and which were targeting the US).

        https://web.archive.org/web/20140317...s-1994/p32484#
        .

        Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994


        ...


        The Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed three memorandums (UN Document A/49/765) on December 5, 1994, with the accession of Ukraine to the
        Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Through this agreement, these countries (later to include China and France in individual statements) gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

        Now Ukraine is used as a pawn in Trump's election chessboard and even a congressionally authorized military aid is used as leverage to make it bow to the will of the POTUS
        Last edited by pamak; 08 Nov 19, 13:37.
        My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Massena View Post
          https://news.yahoo.com/trump-neglect...104155396.html

          French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday drew fire for saying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was brain dead and its core collective defense commitments in doubt.

          “The French President has chosen drastic words. This is not my view of cooperation within NATO,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel told reporters when asked about Macron’s comments, which were published earlier Thursday in an interview with The Economist. She described the alliance as “irreplaceable.”

          The French president has been pushing hard for Europe to build up its own defense capacity and a more independent foreign policy, rather than rely on the U.S. and NATO alone. That’s a project where he has found traction in Germany, among other countries.

          But in Thursday’s interview he appeared to go further, calling for a wholesale change in Europe’s security architecture, in which NATO’s future role was unclear.

          “What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO,” Macron said. He described fading U.S. commitment and lack of consultation -- especially under President Donald Trump -- as undermining the foundations of the alliance and forcing Europe to rethink its security.
          NATO is a "group thing" and for years we've heard complaints from "over the seas" about USA dominance of everyone and everything else on the planet, Europe included (never mind that most of the owners of our major banks are outside of our national borders ).

          So what would be wrong in letting the other members take a more active role and lead in NATO?

          Could the "brain dead" not be the accumulation of decades of European deference to USA leadership and now faced with handling their own share and affairs within NATO, they haven't a clue or motivation ???
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by pamak View Post
            Speaking about abandoning allies, we should include the example of Ukraine.

            Even though it is not technically an ally, it is still protected by agreements that the US signed in 1994 in order to remove the nuclear weapons which were staged there (and which were targeting the US).

            https://web.archive.org/web/20140317...s-1994/p32484#
            .

            Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994


            ...


            The Presidents of Ukraine, Russian Federation and United States of America, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom signed three memorandums (UN Document A/49/765) on December 5, 1994, with the accession of Ukraine to the
            Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Through this agreement, these countries (later to include China and France in individual statements) gave national security assurances to Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine.

            Now Ukraine is used as a pawn in Trump's election chessboard and even a congressionally authorized military aid is used as leverage to make it bow to the will of the POTUS
            But not as much as we saw earlier with the Obama-Biden manipulations.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Massena View Post
              French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday drew fire for saying the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was brain dead and its core collective defense commitments in doubt.
              You really should study some history before you make these anti Trump threads.

              France will do what is in her best interests, as it should be. Read 'The Pentagon Papers' for a start.

              France insisted on Truman transporting their colonial troops to Indochina....in what historically appears to have been a hint regarding staying in NATO.

              In the mid 60's France pulled out of NATO integrated command structure, they didn't become active in NATO again until the 90s during operations in the Balkans. It wasn't until 2004 that France started to assign personnel to SHAPE. In 2009 France officially rejoined NATO's integrated command structure.

              Macron's remarks weren't about Trump abandoning allies, it was Macron looking out for what he thinks is best for France......absolutely nothing to do with Trump.
              "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                But not as much as we saw earlier with the Obama-Biden manipulations.
                I present facts which cannot be disputed such as the secret freezing of a military aid during negotiations which even members of Trump's National Security Council describe as a "drug deal"

                According to the sword testimony of another National Security Council member (Hill) of the TRUMP Administration

                https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/77751...olicy-official

                “This is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton: ‘You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this,’”


                You present conspiracy theories
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                  Stalin could not even eliminate Tito .Every year the Soviet power in Eastern Europe was falling, thus how could the SU occupy another 200 million people ? Where would he get the needed manpower ?
                  No country was /is strong enough to dominate Europe.Napoleon could not do it, Hitler could not do it , Stalin could not do it . Putin can not do it . Besides the military power of Russia is only a shadow of the military power of the SU .
                  You are living in the past, in a society,an era that has disappeared, and I doubt that it ever has existed .
                  Sooner or later, and I expect sooner, US will leave Europe and Putin will not invade Europe .
                  So as I recall, from reading books written by former Soviet generals and other articles and reports back during the 1980s and Cold War "heights" prior to the SU/USSR collapse; somewhere from half to 4/5ths of Soviet AFVs and combat aircraft were not at operational status and ready to "roll and go" on short notice. It would take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months to get this gear ready for combat duty and make an effective use in an attack/invasion upon Western Europe.

                  Further more, most of the Soviet; SU/USSR divisions/units/organizations were staffed at cadre' levels so would also require time to call up the reserves and former members needed to flesh out their TO&E. This timeline could be from a few weeks to a few months and hence would provide lead-time warning to the West and NATO for a response to Soviet mobilization.

                  Also, the call up of reservists and others to flesh out the many cadre's of Soviet divisions and units/organizations of the "First Wave" will pull many essential persons from the Soviet Industry/Agriculture/Commerce internal sectors as to constitute a major social/economic/industrial disruption to Domestic Soviet activities and well-being(economic he.

                  Injury to insult is that much of the wheeled/truck needs for transport and logistics to sustain a large scale attack/invasion of Western Europe would require pulling in the truck transport infrastructure in use to sustain the Industry/Agriculture/Commerce of the SU/USSR such that major internal dislocations would be further exacerbated.

                  So it would appear to any realistic and accurate assessors of SU/USSR military threat that to attack/invade the West/Europe might do more harm the the Soviet interior than to the West. Also, the lag in time to mobilize and build-up needed by the SU/USSR gives the West an equal window to do equal response.

                  Back then the SU/USSR was threatening with a hollow stick of balsa wood, and to fill that "hollow" with some lead would likely do more internal harm to the SU/USSR than their attack upon the West would produce. Not to mention any rewards/gains of such an attack/invasion would like not come close to making up the investment required to preform such in the first place.

                  EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissol...e_Soviet_Union
                  Last edited by G David Bock; 08 Nov 19, 16:06.
                  TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

                    So as I recall, from reading books written by former Soviet generals and other articles and reports back during the 1980s and Cold War "heights" prior to the SU/USSR collapse; somewhere from half to 4/5ths of Soviet AFVs and combat aircraft were not at operational status and ready to "roll and go" on short notice. It would take anywhere from a few weeks to a few months to get this gear ready for combat duty and make an effective use in an attack/invasion upon Western Europe.

                    Further more, most of the Soviet; SU/USSR divisions/units/organizations were staffed at cadre' levels so would also require time to call up the reserves and former members needed to flesh out their TO&E. This timeline could be from a few weeks to a few months and hence would provide lead-time warning to the West and NATO for a response to Soviet mobilization.

                    Also, the call up of reservists and others to flesh out the many cadre's of Soviet divisions and units/organizations of the "First Wave" will pull many essential persons from the Soviet Industry/Agriculture/Commerce internal sectors as to constitute a major social/economic/industrial disruption to Domestic Soviet activities and well-being(economic he.

                    Injury to insult is that much of the wheeled/truck needs for transport and logistics to sustain a large scale attack/invasion of Western Europe would require pulling in the truck transport infrastructure in use to sustain the Industry/Agriculture/Commerce of the SU/USSR such that major internal dislocations would be further exacerbated.

                    So it would appear to any realistic and accurate assessors of SU/USSR military threat that to attack/invade the West/Europe might do more harm the the Soviet interior than to the West. Also, the lag in time to mobilize and build-up needed by the SU/USSR gives the West an equal window to do equal response.

                    Back then the SU/USSR was threatening with a hollow stick of balsa wood, and to fill that "hollow" with some lead would likely do more internal harm to the SU/USSR than their attack upon the West would produce. Not to mention any rewards/gains of such an attack/invasion would like not come close to making up the investment required to preform such in the first place.
                    It has since come to light where people can openly examine and critique Soviet equipment from that era, that most of their stuff was pretty much badly made junk.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      It has since come to light where people can openly examine and critique Soviet equipment from that era, that most of their stuff was pretty much badly made junk.
                      Which adds further injury to insult that only about a quarter was really operational and ready to "go and roll" at any given moment.
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post

                        I present facts which cannot be disputed such as the secret freezing of a military aid during negotiations which even members of Trump's National Security Council describe as a "drug deal"

                        According to the sword testimony of another National Security Council member (Hill) of the TRUMP Administration

                        https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/77751...olicy-official

                        “This is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton: ‘You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this,’”


                        You present conspiracy theories
                        You present hearsay. This is not a direct quote from Ambassador ( haha ) Bolton : it is the claim of some one .
                        And who is this anonymous NSC member ? An other Democratic sleeper ?
                        Fiona Hill worked for Obama : we know enough .
                        Last edited by ljadw; 09 Nov 19, 00:55.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ljadw View Post
                          You present hearsay. This is not a direct quote from Ambassador ( haha ) Bolton : it is the claim of some one .
                          And who is this anonymous NSC member ? An other Democratic sleeper ?
                          Fiona Hill worked for Obama : we know enough .
                          I quoted her saying "This is a direct quote..." I was talking about the sworn testimony of a person who was also in Trump's National Security Council.
                          You know nothing since all these career professionals have worked for many presidents.

                          I take her sworn testimony over the BS of trolls from the right anytime...
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ljadw View Post

                            And ,except Poland, none of them has any military significence .
                            Put them together, and they do. It's the brilliance of alliances and safety-in-numbers.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
                              Put them together, and they do. It's the brilliance of alliances and safety-in-numbers.
                              The Baltics have no aircraft .
                              And why put them together ? Do you think that if there is a war between Finland/Poland and Russia Greece/Albania will declare war on Russie and will send troops to Finland/Poland ?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                                I quoted her saying "This is a direct quote..." I was talking about the sworn testimony of a person who was also in Trump's National Security Council.
                                You know nothing since all these career professionals have worked for many presidents.

                                I take her sworn testimony over the BS of trolls from the right anytime...
                                I will correct this one : ''career professionals "" = deep state sleepers, deep state professionals .
                                Besides : what Bolton said was his opinion : he disagreed with the policy the WH was making , but he did not say that it was a quid pro quo .
                                The colonel ,cited here by the Obama lobby, was also a DS professional : he was talking about a bipartisan foreign policy, meaning that the foreign policy of Trump should have the consent of the Democrats and RINOs.
                                This is totally wrong as the potus is the only one who determines US foreign policy. Not the NSC, not State, not the secretary of state, not CNN . Not Congres.The only power Congress has is to reject a treaty proposal .
                                The potus is the executive branch of the government, he is not obliged to follow the opinion of the NSC.Neither the opinion of the secretary of state or the NSA .: these people serve at the pleasure of the potus and can be fired at will as happened to Tillerson,Bolton and Bryan, Lansing, Haig, Powell.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X