[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In International News See other International News Articles Title: Trump: NATO partners "agreed to substantially up their commitment" Source: HotAir URL Source: https://hotair.com/archives/2018/07 ... reed-substantially-commitment/ Published: Jul 12, 2018 Author: Ed Morrissey Post Date: 2018-07-12 09:30:26 by Tooconservative Keywords: None Views: 2435 Comments: 26 Mission accomplished? After a contentious NATO summit, Donald Trump held a surprise press conference earlier today to announce substantial increases in spending commitments by other members of the alliance. Trump declared NATO now a “fine-tuned machine” after his negotiations, but also hinted that he could have disassembled it if he wanted: "Everyone has agreed to substantially up their commitment": Pres. Trump says NATO member nations have agreed to spend more money on defense. https://t.co/rc4ztpQ6dg pic.twitter.com/RxIHuz0QoV — ABC News (@ABC) July 12, 2018 President Donald Trump declared NATO a “fine-tuned machine” in an impromptu news conference at the conclusion of his participation in a contentious NATO summit during which he has questioned the utility of the alliance and harshly criticized some of the United States’ closest allies for not paying more into the alliance. The alliance is much stronger than it was at the outset of the conference, Trump said Thursday, taking credit for what he said are increased commitments from allies to up spending, citing an increased commitment of $33 billion to the alliance. “Yesterday, I let them know that I was extremely unhappy with what was happening and they have substantially upped their commitment and now we’re very happy, and have a very, very powerful, very strong NATO; much stronger than it was two days ago,” Trump said. The president told reporters he “probably” had the unilateral power to pull the United States out of NATO if he chose to do so but said he thinks it’s unnecessary. Not only is that a foolish thing to say, it’s at least technically untrue. The NATO treaty was ratified by the Senate in August 1949, giving it the force of law, which means — theoretically, anyway — that Congress would have to act to formally undo it. In practice, though, Jimmy Carter unilaterally canceled a ratified defense treaty with Taiwan in 1978 without any action from Congress, and without any penalties except some political damage that largely got forgotten in the Iranian crisis the next year. Congress might take stronger action against a president that abruptly denounced our NATO membership, especially with this president. Even apart from that, it’s still foolish, considering how much the US relies on its NATO partners for security and military operations that go far beyond Europe. It’s the equivalent of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. And yet Reuters claims that Trump leveled that threat as a means to getting the contribution increases he demanded: U.S. President Donald Trump told NATO allies in a closed-door meeting on Thursday that governments needed to raise spending to 2 percent of economic output by January next year or the United States would go its own way, two people familiar with the discussions told Reuters. The ultimatum was delivered in a session at the NATO summit, the sources said. “He said they must raise spending by January 2019 or the United States would go it alone,” one person said. French president Emmanuel Macron denied that any threat ever was aired, publicly or privately: BRUSSELS (AP) — Macron says Trump 'never at any moment, either in public or in private, threatened to withdraw from NATO' — Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) July 12, 2018 Maybe not, but the private meeting featured some “intense” back and forth anyway, according to one of Trump’s targets: Merkel said: “We had a very intense summit.” … The mood had appeared to have calmed as the summit went into its second day, focusing on operations beyond Europe. But, several sources said, Trump instead reopened in strong terms his demand that other countries spend more immediately. “The language was much tougher today,” one source told Reuters. “His harshest words were directed at Germany, including by calling her Angela —‘You, Angela.’” As well as Merkel, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez and Charles Michel, the prime minister of Belgium, were singled out by Trump for undershooting on their spending targets when U.S. taxpayers, funding a defense budget worth about 3.6 percent of their national income, foot much of NATO’s bills. In the end, Trump got the other NATO members to agree to his terms. That’s why he held a press conference to declare victory, but it’s likely only a momentary win. NATO members have been pledging increases for years, only to fall short later. Their countries aren’t fond of the idea of spending more money on defense, a legitimate frustration for the US. Perhaps Trump thought that threats of breaking the alliance might finally wake them up, but those are very likely to have more effect on NATO’s opponents and enemies, who have waited almost 70 years for the alliance to fall apart. Airing notions of unilateral withdrawal in public over $33 billion in pledges is pennywise and pound-foolish in a world where Russia is actively rebuilding its empire by force in places like Georgia and Ukraine. And when those pledges fall short, you can bet your bottom dollar that Vladimir Putin will have Russia’s propaganda machine making the most of it, hoping to break the last threads of the alliance that broke the Soviet Union and kept Russia out of eastern Europe since then. Poster Comment: Okay, now NATO is a fine-tuned machine after a two-day summit. Too bad our other presidents never thought of that. Maybe we should wait to see if our alleged allies actually do increase their spending by Trump's January deadline. I like how he went after Merkel. "You, Angela." After he threw those pieces of penny candy on the table in front of Merkel in Canada last month and said, "Don't ever say I never gave you anything, Angela." Anyway, it was a very fun little junket for Trump to go tell off those uppity EUro deadbeats. This also plays into Trump's sanctions against Iran and his demand for fairer trade with the EU. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: All (#0) And you doubted Trump. For shame. NATO is now a well-tuned machine. Donald gave Merkel a personal tuneup, along with some others. LOL Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-12   11:58:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: All, Vicomte13, redleghunter (#0) AoS: Speaking of “Warriors” Less than a third of German military assets are operational says report Number of weapon systems ready for action: Typhoon jets: 39 of 128 Tornado jets: 26 of 93 CH-53 transport helicopters: 16 of 72 NH-90 transport helicopters: 13 of 58 Tigre attack helicopters: 12 of 62 A400M transport aircraft: 3 of 15 Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224 Frigates: 5 of 13 Submarines: 0 out of 6 That's the entire Bundeswehr. Nobody else in (western) Europe is doing much better. Compare that to the TOE for a single US Mechanized Infantry Division. Throw in a little air cover from the zoomies, and the US Division would mop the floor with the entire Bundeswehr. And the US Army has 20 divisions, give or take, about half of them active. No wonder NATO is squealing like a stuck pig at Trump's demands that they pull their weight. I get that we're going to be the 800lb elephant in the war room, but I don't think it's asking too much for NATO to be a pack of wolves at our side, do you? Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-13   15:03:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Tooconservative (#2) (Edited) The other Western countries aren't doing much better... I can't quite agree with that. The major powers there face different problems. Rand corporation did a study entitled: "The Abilities of the British, French, and German Armies to Generate and Sustain Armored Brigades in the Baltics" Here is their synopsis: "We found that the three countries each could muster and sustain a heavy brigade, albeit at different rates; sustaining these forces would also require significant strain. More specifically, Britain and France would be able to marshal and sustain at least one battalion-size combined arms battle group within a few weeks, with Germany perhaps taking longer. The French probably would get there first, possibly within the first week. Surging more forces to get the deployments up to brigade strength would take more time: a few weeks in the French case and possibly more than a month in the British or German case. For all three armies, the effort would be a major endeavor that probably would leave the forces with little spare capacity for any other contingencies, and there are questions to be asked regarding the capabilities that those forces might have at their disposal or their aptitude for the kind of warfare that fighting the Russians might involve. For the French, the essential problem is that their army already is badly overstretched; for the British and Germans, the problem is the size of their deployable force, although both now are working to expand that size." Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-13   15:14:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: Vicomte13 (#3) Most of the first troops to reach a conflict would be American. Our readiness forces are probably greater than the forces of EU NATO combined. That's just not right. And Germany clearly is unprepared to respond to any sustained conflict. These countries have never re-armed and restocked on vital spare parts since they expended their might trying to off Ghaddafi. They failed and we had to finish him off, wrecking North Africa in the process. After that, our alleged allies all cut spending and did not replace the parts and missiles they had expended. So even if you can say that France will get there in a week or Germany in two weeks, will they have enough munitions and spare parts to sustain them for a month or more? The answer is no. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-13   15:21:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Tooconservative (#4) So even if you can say that France will get there in a week or Germany in two weeks, will they have enough munitions and spare parts to sustain them for a month or more? The answer is no. Does Russia have the armed forces to sustain an invasion? No. If Russia invaded, and broke through, and was surging towards capturing a Western capital, would France or England warn them to stop or face nuclear consequences? Unknown. If the Russians overran Germany, absent a full alliance between Germany and France, as the Russians approached the Rhine the French would warn them to stop. If the Russians crossed the Rhine and could not be stopped conventionally, the French would nuke them rather than permit France to be overrun. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-13   17:56:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Vicomte13 (#5) If Russia invaded, and broke through, and was surging towards capturing a Western capital, would France or England warn them to stop or face nuclear consequences? Unknown. They would rely on America to stand up to Russia and to sacrifice Chicago for Latvia or Estonia. You know, because it's our duty to them or something. The rest of the time, they look down on America as a backward and annoying country, in much the same way that you so often do here at LF. If the Russians overran Germany, absent a full alliance between Germany and France, as the Russians approached the Rhine the French would warn them to stop. If the Russians crossed the Rhine and could not be stopped conventionally, the French would nuke them rather than permit France to be overrun. Would they? I think France would turn Vichy again. A half-dozen nukes on its major cities and France would be obliterated for the next century or so. France's nukes probably still work but France has never been considered reliable as a nuclear ally. Britain is only marginally better and their reputation may be unmerited in the modern era. Britain's current leaders are not Churchills or Thatchers. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-14   0:42:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Tooconservative (#6) France's nukes probably still work but France has never been considered reliable as a nuclear ally. France is a reliable ally to the extent that what America wants is also in France's national interest. France is not a satellite of the USA any more than the USA is a satellite of France. Would France nuke the Russians, or the Americans, or anybody else who was invading France that the French could not defeat in the field with their army? Who would ever take that chance? The USA? No. Russia? Too far away. Germany? Far too weak. Who, then? Truth is, the Germans have let their army decay because they know they don't really need it, same reason the British have let their forces decay. France still has a strong army and navy because France holds onto departments and territories all over the world, and is heavily invested in controlling the French half of Africa. The only threats to the hexagon itself is from internal terrorism, and nukes won't defend against that. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-14   12:37:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Tooconservative (#6) The rest of the time, they look down on America as a backward and annoying country, in much the same way that you so often do here at LF. I do not look down on the United States. That's ridiculous. I look down on what is crappy about America, and I look down on Americans - and non-Americans - who are crappy people. I cut some slack, but "My country, right or wrong" is the attitude of an idiot, which I am not. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-14   12:39:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Tooconservative (#6) Remember, please, that Russia is not the USSR. The combined population of Germany and France, or France and the UK, is greater than the population of Russia, and the French, British and German economies are all larger than the economy of Russia. Simply put, Russia is not economically powerful enough to defeat ANY of the three major Western European powers in a sustained war, and militarily, the UK and France together would defeat the Russians in the field and stop the Russians cold. And it would not be the UK and France together. It would be the UK plus France plus Germany plus Poland plus Holland plus Belgium plus Italy plus Denmark plus Norway plus a whole bunch of other countries. If European NATO mobilized, they would conquer Russia. Russia is only defensible against a mobilized Europe because of the Russian nuclear arsenal. Russia is not the USSR, and the Ukraine would probably join NATO in attacking Russia were a war to come. Let's not pretend that the United States is standing in the breach between Western Europe and a Russian conquest. Russia versus Europe is like Mexico trying to invade the United States. Except that the Mexicans are successfully doing that already. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-14   12:45:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: Vicomte13 (#9) Russia versus Europe is like Mexico trying to invade the United States. One of the dumbest things ever said. A K A Stone  posted on  2018-07-14   13:36:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Vicomte13 (#9) If European NATO mobilized, they would conquer Russia. With what? Don't make me laugh. They'd be out of munitions in a week. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-14   14:21:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Tooconservative (#11) I said mobilized, not just “walked East”. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-14   16:45:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: Vicomte13 (#12) I said mobilized, not just “walked East”. If Putin grabbed one or more of the Baltics and/or Ukraine, waiting to mobilize over weeks won't work. I think the NATO ready-force they created is a waste. I don't think the EU countries are that serious about it. And their numbers are far too small to stop Russia from advancing, let alone rout an occupying force. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-14   19:30:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Tooconservative (#13) If Putin grabbed one or more of the Baltics and/or Ukraine, waiting to mobilize over weeks won't work. I think the NATO ready-force they created is a waste. I don't think the EU countries are that serious about it. And their numbers are far too small to stop Russia from advancing, let alone rout an occupying force. If Putin grabbed any of the Baltics, all of which are NATO allies, there would be a World War. Russia does not have the military strength to overrun Germany, let alone Western Europe. A Russian attack on a NATO ally Baltic State would have exactly the same effect as Germany's overrunning of Poland in 1939. Any pretense that the Western Europeans would just simply accept that is ridiculous. When Hitler overran Poland, France and Britain declared war. Yes, the initial phases of that war went pretty bad for Britain and France, and the war generalized, but it did not stop until Germany was a smoking ruin. And Germany, relative to France and Britain, was a more powerful country. The economy of France, of Germany and of the UK, each separately, are each stronger than the economy of Russia, and the military spending of France alone exceeds that of Russia. If the US went home and Russia attacked the Baltics, Europe would mobilize for war against Russia. The Europeans vastly outnumber the Russians in manpower, in money, in industrial power and in combined military force. The Russians have more nuclear weapons, but the combined French/British nuclear force is enough to exterminate Russia once over, and that's all one needs to do. Russia simply is not powerful enough to take on Europe in a conventional war. The Russian army is not that big, or that good, or that well supplied, and the Russian economy is smaller than the economy of France or the UK or Germany each alone - let alone all three. In a prolonged war, France]s superior economy can outproduce Russia one-on-one. And it would not be France alone. It would be France plus Germany plus the UK plus Italy plus Spain plus BeNeLux plus Poland plus Portugal plus all of the Eastern European and Scandinavian powers. And the US would not actually stay out of it. But even if we did, the Europeans are already an alliance, and have an economy larger than the United States, and military forces in the aggregate that exceed the Russians - and that's now. Sure, the Russians might grab NATO Estonia. But THEN what? Then the war BEGINS, and it grinds onward while European production steps up, European armies are mobilized, equipment is built. Soon European airpower outnumbers Russia's two to one, three to one, ten to one. The Russians do not have any deep reserves to draw upon, and they are vastly outnumbered by the Europeans. They are also economically inferior to THREE European states. Taking Estonia doesn't change that balance at all. In short: Russia cannot win a long war with Europe. They would have to grab Estonia and then rely on nuclear weapons to hold it. And what would that get them? Isolated like North Korea. Mobilization for a forever war that their economy cannot sustain. Poverty, collapse, starvation. For what? Estonia? The Russians are not that stupid. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-15   6:44:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: All (#0) Russia still has a numerical advantage of ground forces equipment albeit a good bit of it is from the 70s and 80s. They also have an advantage in nuclear weapons but maybe not in the methods needed to deliver them. As of this time they only have about 20% of the amount of aircraft the US and NATO can field. You're not going to be able to execute any large scale ops without adequate air cover/forces/superiority. (Hitler, Hussien and other undesirables have found this out the hard way). Conclusion: The Bears military is only suitable for small scale ops against lesser forces that have shitty air forces at the present time. The sanctions are putting the screws to him and turning his economy into one seen in a corner market/gas station. And this is also the reason Trump is calling out Merkel because she's giving Putin leverage over a NATO country and enhancing his shitty economy. Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians! CZ82  posted on  2018-07-15   7:48:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Vicomte13 (#14) You greatly overestimate the willingness of the EU NATO countries to actually fight. Polling shows that the population of most of these NATO countries, including Germany, do not believe they will go to war if Russia grabs a NATO country or two. For the EU states and their soft citizens, NATO is all about America defending them, now and forever. While they complain about us and sneer at us. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-15   8:02:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: Tooconservative (#16) Well, then, let Europe go. France will defend itself, and will help defend any nation that accepts French leadership on various matters. Spain, Italy and the UK will defend themselves. I think that Poland and the Ukraine will defend themselves. It is likely that, absent the USA, France will have a good relationship with Russia (France and Russia have always admired each other and been willing to work with each other, perhaps because they’re far apart). What is it to me if Germany is a weak neutral state? A French-Russian understanding for the peaceful operation of Europe makes the most sense. If the US wants to leave, then the big boys of the Coninent will need to step up. That’s ok. It means that US influence will drop to negligible, but also US expense. So what? Where is the skin off our nose. Sure, we can write fantasy novels about monolithic Soviet Russias and renascent Nazi Germanies and the like. Truth is, there are no Hitlers running wild, and everybody on the Continent wants peace, so that’s what they’ll fave. Our presence is not “keeping” the peace, because there isn’t anybody trying to invade anybody in the first place. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-15   10:32:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: Vicomte13 (#17) Your response is too weak to address seriously. Surely you don't think people will still take you seriously when you suddenly want to move the goalposts. Or just abolish entirely the very idea of goalposts when they become inconvenient to your talking points. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-15   10:35:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: CZ82 (#15) As of this time they only have about 20% of the amount of aircraft the US and NATO can field. You are seriously overestimating the actual capabilities of our allies to engage in even a mobilization, let alone a month or more of sustained combat. They would fall apart in less than a week. We have to face the truth about our (alleged) "allies". Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-15   10:37:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Tooconservative (#18) Talking points? Look, the issue is actual security. It's not a game of risk. Defense costs a fortune, and is not the best use of national assets by any means. It's insurance - a necessary expense, but one that has low returns. Overspending on defense means underspending on education, technology,, roads, space, research, culture, welfare and every other thing. You threw out the idea that Russia is going to invade Estonia. It's a gratuitous assertion: that Russia is going to do that. Just like that. When has that sort of thing ever happened? The USSR didn't occupy the Baltic States until they had a treaty with Nazi Germany. Russia is not the USSR. Putin is not a madman. Estonia isn't worth anything - a world war? The complete isolation and destruction of Russia? Come on. YOU presented that wild hare, that gratuitous nonsense, and now you're grousing because I played around with the concept of "what if" - what if Russia does that crazy thing that's never going to happen AND the US isn't in NATO. And now you're grousing AS THOUGH your Estonia fantasy is something that needed to be taken seriously. This is stupid. France is winning the world cup. I'm watching. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-15   12:30:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: Vicomte13 (#20) France is winning the world cup. I'm watching. You'd better enjoy it. That's about all they could win. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-07-15   13:02:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: Tooconservative (#21) You'd better enjoy it. That's about all they could win. I did enjoy it. We went out and had French food for dinner in celebration. Nobody can invade France anymore: that's the point of having an effective nuclear arsenal. So, France is a sanctuary for the French, from which they can project power outwards. France still spans the globe with its national territories and departments: St. Pierre et Miquelon, Guadeloupe, Martinique, St. Martin, St. Barts, Tahiti, Polynesia, New Caledonia, La Reunion, La Guinee Francaise with the European Space Center at Cayenne - the sun never sets on France. Beyond that, there is the vast neocolonial empire in Africa - Françafrique - with its economic, trade and military ties. That is where the bulk of French forces are deployed overseas, and France has been very successful at repelling all comers from its neocolonies, and overturning all revolutionary activity. In short, France has global interests, and has an effective global force that has been successful in preserving those interests. Notably, Algeria, which separated from France after a terrible civil war, is nevertheless very well settled within the French neo-colonial orbit. The French lost in 1940. They lost in Vietnam in 1954. These were true defeats. De Gaulle CHOSE to withdraw from Algeria, rather than destroy the place to keep it (and, in the process, destroy France's own beliefs about itself). De Gaulle changed France's relationship with its colonies to a much more intelligent and modern neo-colonialism. The French have been winning everything since then, for all intents and purposes. They pick their battlefields - and don't let themselves get sucked into fighting for other countries' interests (notably the USA in various places), though they will send token forces to show the flag. On the main front in Europe, where France has suffered her worst defeats, nuclear weapons end any effective threat to the hexagon. The only countries that could have invaded France since 1945 - the USSR and the USA - had little or no likelihood of doing so, and Russia is an order of magnitude less militarily powerful than the USSR was. If Putin went berserk and tried to invade France, he would have to cut through a lot of other countries to get there - and if he managed to do that and France was unable to stop the Russians conventionally, nuclear deterrence would either stop the war at the Rhine OR mutually assured destruction would destroy both places. So "That is about all they could win" is nonsense. France is, militarily, the second most powerful nation in the Western world by a good margin, and like the United States, cannot be conquered. The US could prevent the UK from launching its nukes, but France's force is independent and really is controlled by Paris. It is this French independence, this stubborn insistence at being a peer in inviolability with an independent ability to destroy the world, or not, on their own volition, that sits poorly with Americans. The UK is an American poodle. Germany and Japan are, in the final analysis, occupied countries with severe limitations on what they can really do (and a culture whose trauma has rendered them decisively anti-military). France is much more like the United States in every major respect - a republic, not a monarchy, with a decidedly militarist bent (for which reversals have been a goad, not a discouragement), with an absolute resolution to be inviolable at home, and to maintain a worldwide system of bases. France IS a friendly nation, whose interests align with the USA at the highest level - on matters of freedom, rule of law, economic advance, etc. But, unlike Japan, Germany, the UK, Italy or the other lesser powers of Europe and Asia, France is NOT an American satellite. France does NOT do things just because the Americans request it, expect it. Other countries comply with the US, even when it is not really in their own best interests, because they are satellites. France does not, to the great annoyance of American policymakers at times. In Iraq, the French were right: go in there without world support, and you're heading into a quagmire. The French were willing to go in with the Americans to remove Saddam IF, in the endgame, they got to keep their oil concessions. For reasons having everything to do with American oil interests, as represented by Cheney, and nothing to do with actual US national security or sound military strategy, the Americans refused to negotiate with France on the matter. And so the USA did not get UN support and had to put together a "coalition of the willing" to go in and wreck Iraq, and then be unable to control the ground afterwards when the inevitable rebellion came. The US and its dwindling list of allies fought on and on and on, alone, at great expense, and ultimately pacified the place sufficiently to call it a win, even as the Iranians became the primary beneficiaries of a new pro- Iranian Shi'ite republic. It would have been so much better for the USA and everybody else had "Team W" been less headstrong. We needed France on-side for that fight, and would have easily had them - as long as the French got what they wanted out of it, which was the protection of their economic interests. A satellite does not presume to demand such things, and Americans dislike that France doesn't behave like a satellite. But France isn't a satellite. And won't become one. However, if you really want to UNITE the West, and deconflict the East in a way that makes things better for AMERICANS, then you need a Trump to cut through the fog and do two key things: Make friends with the Russians. And establish a special relationship with France. Do those two things, and Europe and half of Africa are taken care of. The Asian settlement that revolves around North Korea and Chinese trade are being taken care of. That leaves Latin America. THAT is the American neo- colonial orbit, and where we need to be investing OUR eggs...unless you want to see my second-choice outcome of a Spanish speaking America that restricts abortion come to pass. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-16   10:18:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Tooconservative (#2) Leopard 2 tanks: 105 of 224 So sad to see a large industrial nation like Germany with a deep history of being Panzer legends only has 224 tanks in their entire Army. Not to mention more than half inoperable. That's the entire Bundeswehr. Nobody else in (western) Europe is doing much better. Compare that to the TOE for a single US Mechanized Infantry Division. Throw in a little air cover from the zoomies, and the US Division would mop the floor with the entire Bundeswehr. And the US Army has 20 divisions, give or take, about half of them active. No wonder NATO is squealing like a stuck pig at Trump's demands that they pull their weight. I get that we're going to be the 800lb elephant in the war room, but I don't think it's asking too much for NATO to be a pack of wolves at our side, do you? I would say a reinforced (with AH-64s) Brigade combat team (BCT) with an MLRS BN could easily take them. Where Germany would 'beat us' would be after the destruction of their military. They have enough MENA in their population now to conduct an effective insurgency. redleghunter  posted on  2018-07-17   12:10:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: Vicomte13 (#3) Rand corporation did a study entitled: "The Abilities of the British, French, and German Armies to Generate and Sustain Armored Brigades in the Baltics" Here is their synopsis: "We found that the three countries each could muster and sustain a heavy brigade, albeit at different rates; sustaining these forces would also require significant strain. More specifically, Britain and France would be able to marshal and sustain at least one battalion-size combined arms battle group within a few weeks, with Germany perhaps taking longer. The French probably would get there first, possibly within the first week. Surging more forces to get the deployments up to brigade strength would take more time: a few weeks in the French case and possibly more than a month in the British or German case. For all three armies, the effort would be a major endeavor that probably would leave the forces with little spare capacity for any other contingencies, and there are questions to be asked regarding the capabilities that those forces might have at their disposal or their aptitude for the kind of warfare that fighting the Russians might involve. For the French, the essential problem is that their army already is badly overstretched; for the British and Germans, the problem is the size of their deployable force, although both now are working to expand that size." This is actually very sad. redleghunter  posted on  2018-07-17   12:12:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Vicomte13 (#5) Does Russia have the armed forces to sustain an invasion? No. They have the numbers but are logistically challenged even with interior lines of communication. But all Russia has to do is cut off the natural gas, and let Germany stew in that for a bit. redleghunter  posted on  2018-07-17   12:15:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: redleghunter (#25) They have the numbers but are logistically challenged even with interior lines of communication. But all Russia has to do is cut off the natural gas, and let Germany stew in that for a bit. Sure, Russia can make things cold for Germany, but that's really it. And of course then the Russians wouldn't be getting paid for that gas either. What possible incentive would the Russians have to engage in an outright embargo of their primary European export market in their primary export product? The Russians need the money as much as the Germans need the gas. Germany can, of course, replace the gas with other energy. Yes, it will cost them money (they have it), and yes, it will be cold for awhile, but it will get better for the Germans. The country won't collapse. Russia, on the other hand, will have lost a vital source of cash permanently, and as a security measure you can expect that the West will turn decisively away from Russian gas for good. Russia's economy is smaller than Italy's. It's smaller than France's, the UK's and Germany's. Those four countries combined have a greater population and about six times as big an economy as Russia. In short, it is absolutely impossible for Russia to win either a trade war or a conventional war against Western Europe. And if they launched a nuclear war, and the US stayed out, France alone can exterminate Russia. France plus the UK can bounce the rubble. Russia is not a threat to Western Europe. The Cold War is over. The USSR is gone. The Western nations don't have great big militaries, and Russia doesn't have a great big deployable one either - and Russia has no capacity to use it to try to invade all of Western Europe. If they can't conquer it all, they would eventually be conquered by it if they tried to invade any of it. The West learned from Poland 1939. Nobody is going to permit Russia to take a Baltic state and then sit tight. If Russia invaded a NATO country, the full economic and armed might of the West would spool up - it would take some time, but it would happen - and the Russians would be pushed out. Also, the Ukraine would be brought into NATO, along with Georgia - all the rest of the precarious border states. Nuclear weapons means that nobody will be invading Russia, but Russia simply does not have the power to push the West around. Americans keep pretending that they do, in order to justify a sort of neocolonial hold on a NATO of the past. It's not absurd: there's a lot of money being made for American defense contractors, and a lot of unnecessary jobs being filled by military and intelligence professionals. But THAT is the purpose of the current US anti-Russian policy: to keep the military and intelligence services happy and with a purpose, and to keep up the flow of profit to the defense contractors. No real MILITARY or real SECURITY purpose is served by it. What we need to do is make peace with Russia, peace in North Korea, and cut the US military and intelligence budgets by half. Balance the budget that way, and you will REALLY be improving American long term strategic security. John McCain's world no longer exists. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-07-17   13:53:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com