|
This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
|
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
You are delusional, Putin might be a thugh but he is not a genocidal maniac trying to start WWIII.
|
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States.
I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies.
That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
|
On March 05 2015 01:02 always_winter wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States. I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies. That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid.
I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO.
The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk.
As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune.
I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
|
you are living in the past, my friend.
|
On March 05 2015 01:46 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 01:02 always_winter wrote:On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States. I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies. That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid. I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO. The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk. As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune. I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
Yeah, if Germany or Poland got attacked we'd be at war without any controversy. If it was the Baltics, we'd probably still go to war but there would be arguing about it. And if Putin used nukes on anybody in real life we'd make him pay in a sea of blood.
America goes to war for ideological reasons, not economic. This has been broadly true throughout our history. We would make no calculation in Germany got attacked. We'd saddle up and defend you guys because you're our little brother and it's our job to stand up for you.
But yeah, if you guys wanted to meet NATO military spending targets so you could have a functioning army, that would be cool. :-P
|
so many ww3 enthusiasts on TL, holy shit ^_^
|
On March 05 2015 01:54 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 01:46 SixStrings wrote:On March 05 2015 01:02 always_winter wrote:On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States. I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies. That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid. I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO. The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk. As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune. I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable? [...] America goes to war for ideological reasons, not economic. This has been broadly true throughout our history. [...] It really is a propaganda war. Edit: Or rather it appears as though Western propaganda is not without its results.
|
On March 05 2015 01:46 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 01:02 always_winter wrote:On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States. I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies. That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid. I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO. The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk. As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune. I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable?
I just want to stress what a fellow poster said before me: You're delusional to an extent that is horrifying. 1. The US never ever would ignore article five. And the reason is not that there is someone to hold them accountable for not honoring it, there never was. The diplomatic ramifications alone would be mind blowing. That's not even touching on what an American president would have to face at home if he'd shied away from retaliating against Russian aggression against western allies. 2. Modern warfare is long past being about manpower. While still relevant in post war scenarios and asymmetrical warfare ("terrorism") actual conventional combat is about intelligence, logistics and technology. The "size" of a population doesn't matter. Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe.
Never go full retard.
User was warned for this post
|
No, it's not just propaganda. Sometimes nations go to war for economic reasons, to secure interests, etc. Our support of Iraq in Iran/Iraq war was mostly about securing a security interest. So was the Iceland/UK conflict last century. Falklands war too.
Sometimes nations go to war over ideological matters. The US has historically been big on this, for good or for ill. Our support for coups against communists were ideological, not economic. The first Gulf War was mostly economic, but the second one was clearly ideological. Korea and Vietnam were hardly about US security, and the whole "domino effect" argument to justify it in those terms was always unconvincing.
|
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
That's wrong. Trust me, take it from someone close to defence policy (admittedly not too close but enough to have insider info), NATO is steadfast not only with regard to Germany but also regarding countries like the Baltic states. There is a huge difference in terms of the calculation with regard to any NATO member compared to let's say Ukraine or Finland or such countries. Being part of the EU also brings additional security as there's also a common EU security policy (which is underplayed by pretty much everyone, but it has like 90% of the hybrid warfare capacity in Europe).
Also, you can dislike Obama as much as you like (I know I have zero regard for his foreign policy capabilities), but protecting NATO allies is a no-brainer as even hesitation would destroy entire security architecture the US relies on. That's why some of the most capable units in Europe are US troops in various countries (including the Baltic states).
Russia clearly wants to upend the security arrangements in Europe, including driving wedges between NATO allies, but the calculation for attacking a NATO state has costs attached to it which aren't even in the same weight class as attacking a 50 million person country like Ukraine.
|
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On March 05 2015 03:36 nothingmuch wrote: 1. The US never ever would ignore article five. And the reason is not that there is someone to hold them accountable for not honoring it, there never was. The diplomatic ramifications alone would be mind blowing. That's not even touching on what an American president would have to face at home if he'd shied away from retaliating against Russian aggression against western allies. The ramifications of nuclear war are much worse than that of a diplomatic crisis - most sane people would understand that. That said, I am of the opinion that Article 5 is designed in such a way that it exists but that it would never have to be used. In other words, if there is a credible threat of a Russian invasion, that country won't be accepted into NATO. Invading the Baltics would be quite a pointless endeavor, security guarantees or not. There are easier and less controversial ways to deal with that kind of problem, if an invasion were even a serious consideration. It's more posturing than substance, really.
|
On March 05 2015 03:36 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 01:46 SixStrings wrote:On March 05 2015 01:02 always_winter wrote:On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States. I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies. That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid. I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO. The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk. As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune. I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable? Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe. Never go full retard. User was warned for this post
Calling me a retard a couple more times would help your argument.
And how silly of me to assume that Putin could ever use a nuke. Militant dictators have historically been so tame, so why assume the worst?
|
The Soviet Union using Cuba as a pawn during the Cold War has absolutely zero parallels to Ukrainian NATO membership. This is precisely the type of radical fear-mongering, fueled by the appeal of false controversy, which the Russian state media is using to spread misinformation among its own people.
Russia perceiving every nation to its West as a probable enemy is not rational behavior, and cannot be appeased to as such. It is an irrational fear that if Ukraine were to join NATO or the EU, Russia's security would be compromised. It is an irrational fear to assume the entire Western world is "out to get them," or that the US is trying to annex half of Russia (Russian civilians actually believe this).
The video you shared is nothing more than a press conference in which an American dignitary states the United States has provided 5 billion dollars in aid to Ukraine. The title puts the words "subvert Ukraine" in quotations even though these words are never spoken, and in stark contrast the dignitary explains the funds are used to help Ukraine transition to a more open, democratic society.
Educate yourself. Don't take any information at face value. Certainly don't buy into strange controversies.
|
You do realize though that hell broke lose over a simple trade agreement with the EU? NATO membership in Ukraine was never really popular in Ukraine until this war started and pretty much opposed by everyone who was not a hawkish Republican.
|
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings.
....... Please explain to me how a guy like you would know that the USA and EU is not allied and Putin, somehow wouldn't?
i'm not making sense out of this post
maybe i'm tired
|
On March 05 2015 04:26 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 03:36 nothingmuch wrote:On March 05 2015 01:46 SixStrings wrote:On March 05 2015 01:02 always_winter wrote:On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States. I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies. That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid. I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO. The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk. As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune. I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable? Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe. Never go full retard. User was warned for this post Calling me a retard a couple more times would help your argument. And how silly of me to assume that Putin could ever use a nuke. Militant dictators have historically been so tame, so why assume the worst?
My apologies. I assumed that the expression "go full retard" was more common/ known, especially in the dota community than it apparently is. Or maybe I just misunderstand/use it. To me it's applicable when someone is being really silly. And to illustrate why I think you were just that with your line of reasoning: If nuclear weapons were used in a military conflict between "Europe" and Russia, civilisation as we know it would cease to exist. Arguing troop levels or foreign policy in the face of that fact just seems ridiculous to me.
|
On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. Are you being deliberately inflammatory? There is this thing called NATO, and even though most European nations don't hit the required military spending levels by the treaty, its still among other things a mutual self defense treaty. The reason Putin is working so hard to make sure that Ukraine doesn't join NATO is that if they were in NATO the US and the rest of NATO would be obligated to defend them from both the rebels and the Russian troops in Ukraine.
Well the thing is that Ukraine wants to become a NATO nation, and is already a European Nation. And its much more like if Russia was arming and providing military support to rebels that they encouraged to begin the revolt or just stright up created them selves.
|
On March 05 2015 04:49 nothingmuch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2015 04:26 SixStrings wrote:On March 05 2015 03:36 nothingmuch wrote:On March 05 2015 01:46 SixStrings wrote:On March 05 2015 01:02 always_winter wrote:On March 05 2015 00:34 SixStrings wrote: This is a pretty bad situation to be a European now. Should war break loose, we can not adequately defend against Russia.
Since Putin considers us an ally to the USA, he won't think twice about attacking us. Since the USA doesn't consider us an ally, they won't even consider defending us.
So if Putin plays this smart, he won't attack the UK, so the USA won't be involved, and the rest of Europe will be easy pickings. It is a pretty bad situation in Europe right now, but should war break loose, not only could Europe easily defend itself against Russian aggression, but the United States would undoubtedly be part of a combined international coalition which would be in Moscow in less than thirty days. That is the difference in power between NATO-aligned nations and Russia. Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty specifies an attack on any member-state requires the immediate aid of fellow member-states. This means an attack on Germany would require, by law, an immediate military response by the United States. I'd also like to add that recent Russian provocations in allied air-space have been conducted by WW2-era bombers, which is a fairly accurate depiction of the modernity and readiness of the Russian military. The power disparity between Russia and the United States alone is massive, let alone the United States and her NATO allies. That being said, the fact Putin is still going unchecked in Ukraine is absolutely mind-boggling. Quite honestly, it's a testament to how strong the US-German alliance is, as it was at the behest of Angela Merkel, along with his own advisors, that President Obama decided to allow the cease-fire talks to transpire prior to considering the delivery of lethal aid. I think you overestimate both the military capacities of Europe as well as the reach of the NATO. The only real military force in mainland Europe is France. Germany's forces are pretty meager compared to the size of its population and the other countries simply don't have the population to support a large military. All Russia has to do is nuke key locations in France and Germany, where are large part of Europe's population and military are tightly bundled together, and the rest would be a cakewalk. As to German-American relations: yes, Merkel is sucking up to Obama big time and until TTIP is done and dusted, Obama will make minor concessions. Once there are no more EU-roadblocks to get in the way of American companies dominating the European market, his successor will likely sing a different tune. I'm aware of Article Five, and I have no doubt the US will adhere to it, as long as it's economically viable. Once the US see that costs more to defend Europe than to just pick up the pieces later, who is going to hold them accountable? Luckily you went full retard with your post and included nukes in your scenario. Please wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing about diplomacy/politics in a post nuclear war Europe. Never go full retard. User was warned for this post Calling me a retard a couple more times would help your argument. And how silly of me to assume that Putin could ever use a nuke. Militant dictators have historically been so tame, so why assume the worst? My apologies. I assumed that the expression "go full retard" was more common/ known, especially in the dota community than it apparently is. Or maybe I just misunderstand/use it. To me it's applicable when someone is being really silly. And to illustrate why I think you were just that with your line of reasoning: If nuclear weapons were used in a military conflict between "Europe" and Russia, civilisation as we know it would cease to exist. Arguing troop levels or foreign policy in the face of that fact just seems ridiculous to me.
I misunderstood, I thought you meant that it's unthinkable that nuclear weapons would be used.
|
|
|
|