Yup. Germany should treat us a bit nicer...Redbrickbear said:Why would Poland not want US troops? Just for the cash they bring alone.RMF5630 said:We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.whiterock said:Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.Redbrickbear said:Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.whiterock said:yes, but....Sam Lowry said:Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.whiterock said:that is a very fair point.Sam Lowry said:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.whiterock said:How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.Redbrickbear said:Come on...you can not possibly know that.whiterock said:The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.Oldbear83 said:whiterock said:You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.Oldbear83 said:
I won't abandon Sanity.
I won't lie to sell my position.
I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.
Some here have done so, it appears.
Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?
Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...
Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.
Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.
There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.
This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.
Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.
If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?
If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.
A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.
There is no upside to not winning.......
They are not going anywhere.
In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/
Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/
They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.
The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.
This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.
How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?
The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.
US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...
How many billions do we put into the Germany economy every year from our military bases and personnel? We can't even guess how much we have spent there since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
We still have at least 40,000 troops there in 40 major bases. And at one point we had 220 other bases during the cold war.
In terms of investment, infrastructure, payouts, contracts with local business, spending by service members in the local area....it has to be in the many many billions a year.
I am sure the German government knows the exact dollar figure because they are not interested in seeing the US leave.
Of course Poland would love to get the U.S. to decamp from Germany and move all their bases...and that sweet sweet revenue...to Poland.
Russia mobilizes
261,844 Views |
4259 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by sombear
I interpreted "This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO", as a Romania criticism, not a NATO criticism. Romania had every reason to join NATO.Sam Lowry said:Duh. It's obvious why they wanted to join. Much less obvious why they were allowed to.ATL Bear said:I can't imagine why any nascent country freeing itself from the thumb of its oppressor would be interested in protecting itself from becoming under its thumb again by forces it couldn't defeat alone….Sam Lowry said:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.whiterock said:How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.Redbrickbear said:Come on...you can not possibly know that.whiterock said:The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.Oldbear83 said:whiterock said:You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.Oldbear83 said:
I won't abandon Sanity.
I won't lie to sell my position.
I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.
Some here have done so, it appears.
Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?
Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...
Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.
Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.
There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.
This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.
Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.
If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?
If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
These are such poor takes.
Understood.ATL Bear said:I interpreted "This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO", as a Romania criticism, not a NATO criticism. Romania had every reason to join NATO.Sam Lowry said:Duh. It's obvious why they wanted to join. Much less obvious why they were allowed to.ATL Bear said:I can't imagine why any nascent country freeing itself from the thumb of its oppressor would be interested in protecting itself from becoming under its thumb again by forces it couldn't defeat alone….Sam Lowry said:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.whiterock said:How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.Redbrickbear said:Come on...you can not possibly know that.whiterock said:The peace argument for this war is quite weaker than most.Oldbear83 said:whiterock said:You also won't identify how letting Russia annex all/part of Ukraine is preferable to the current situation.Oldbear83 said:
I won't abandon Sanity.
I won't lie to sell my position.
I won't ignore the deaths of innocents in the name of politics.
Some here have done so, it appears.
Since I oppose Putin's invasion, of course I do not consider that acceptable. Have you ignored all my prior posts?
Putin's policy is quite clear, consistent, in both statement and deed. He is going to keep coming westward, with columns armored and fifth, until the Baltics, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania are no longer members in Nato. The only question is time...
Not to mention any invasion, attack, aggression against any NATO state means war with the USA-UK-France-Germany.
Russia of course would be wiped out in such a war.
There is no rational world were we see Russian troop watering their horses in the Danube river.
This statement of "we must stop Russia in Donbas (where the people are ethnic Russians) before they reach Poland or Hungary" is just classic pro-war propaganda.
Hungary (long under the Soviet boot) is the lone voice of peace out there in Europe right now. They are not afraid that Russia is going to come for them next.
If the Hungarians are not afraid why should beltway boomers in D.C. be afraid?
If anything this war against Ukraine as given NATO a new lease on life.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
These are such poor takes.
Most of the pieces I've read have indicated policy recognizes and is attempting to deal with the issue, ergo the M1's are not likely to be avail until later-year. Leopards will be deployable sooner, apparently.RMF5630 said:Didn't say I was against it, just that it is a sustainable and reasonable approach... Gonna be a painful learning curve.whiterock said:There are still 47 Russian-made,figher/bomber jet aircraft in Polish inventory. Romania has 21. Slovakia has 11. That's 79 airframes, that those three nations struggle to maintain, some key parts unavailable. Better to transfer them to die in combat defending Western interests than collect dust in a scrapyard somewhere. Ukraine can cannibalize them for parts and get at least 50 jets back in the air very quickly. Some within days. Whatever argument can be made about the limitations in time & capability such would afford, it is better than letting them rust on the ground next door.RMF5630 said:whiterock said:Ukraine can join NATO anytime two conditions are met: It applies, and Nato accepts. Nato is most certainly not going to accept Ukraine while it is engaged in a very hot war with Russia, as such would be a patent declaration of war against Russia. Ukraine knows this. That's why Ukraine is begging for arms & ammo from Nato countries. Ukraine can win the war if fully supplied.trey3216 said:Ukraine can join NATO under 1 and only 1 condition….they need total victory in their war versus Russia.whiterock said:Exactly.Doc Holliday said:Zelensky is saying that it will absolutely happen, not that it's on the table as an option.RMF5630 said:Of course he is. It is in his and Ukraine's best interest to add NATO to his defense. Why would anyone expect him not to play for NATO to enter the war???Redbrickbear said:
It is up to NATO to set the parameters of support, not Zelinsky. He will take whatever support we will give, it is nave and foolish to expect otherwise. Don't see the point of Wolfe's tweet besides dramatic effect.
Ukraine can push, publicly and privately, all it wants to for Nato membership. And such will have an impact on it's foreign relationships.
NATO is not obligated by any of that. Nor has NATO made any promises. NATO is doing what NATO should, exercising strategic ambiguity....not clearly indicating whether it will or will not admit Ukraine. That complicates Russian calculations.
I don't see a likely scenario for Ukraine entering Nato. Major issues: such would ratify the Russian excuse for the war in the first place, such would put MORE Russian/Nato divisions stationed across borders from each other, such would have opposition from Nato members. I would assess Turkey as a hard NO to Ukrainian membership. Crimea and much of southern Ukraine was once either integral or vassal to the Ottoman Empire. A weak, independent Ukrainian state is far more useful to Turkey than a peer state within Nato that could count on Article 5 protections.
The forces driving this war are as old as time. Turkey, if one were to spend all night drinking raki with Erdogan, has not given up on the romantic notion of one day returning those lands to a regime enforcing sharia law, as a protectorate of Turkey. That such is impossible in any practical scenario one could devise does not mean that such romance would not have influence over policy today.
I would be extremely reluctant to admit Ukraine to NATO. Would not close the door, but would want to see a couple decades to assess the stability of the Ukrainian society. By contrast, an independent Ukraine counting on partner status with Nato is a manageable scenario with limited short-term downside. A Ukrainian state careening between pro-West and pro-Russian factions is only a problem if that state is already a NATO ally. Nato has never had a scenario where undemocratic actions inside a member state has threatened to fracture the alliance. We should not court such a scenario by admitting unstable partners, particularly not when Russian armies are waiting to come to the aid of a country that has undemocratically chosen to withraw from Nato. The problems are myriad: Do we attack a Nato state to return them to an alliance? Do we invoke Article 5 on behalf of a regime in exile to fight to expel Russian troops from a Nato state which has invited them in? We did that in WWII. Do we do it today? Hard choices. Which are best avoided by winning the current conflict.
the size of Nato makes in virtually invulnerable to military attack.
the size of Nato makes it HIGHLY vulnerable to 5th column actions.
Ergo the need to keep Russian armies in Russia.......
Why?
Because Russia needs to be humiliated. Russia needs a face check in modern global affairs both politically and economically. Russia needs to understand that its long suffering, mafioso tactics have no business in an integrated world. That expansion by force is not a policy. That screaming Nazi at people you don't like (but oh so desperately want their land and for them to be integrated into your nation once you take it) is not a way of life, especially when you're acting as the Nazi in this scenario.
Then, and only then, can Ukraine be a part of NATO, because it won't matter if they're in nato anymore once Russia decides they don't want to be the heel
It is not a simple matter to just supply. NATO weapon systems require training. You can't just put 4 armored crewmen in a M1, let alone a battalion, and expect them to engage T-90s. That is not even considering the supply and maintenance to support that battalion. To make a dent, you are talking brigades. That is a generational change! To do it on the fly with a hodgepodge combination of Leopards, Challengers and M1s? You will need armor to dislodge Russia, infantry and artillery can only do so much against armor columns, especially since Russia owns the air space.
I would imagine aircraft are worse. F16s take 9 months to train on the aircraft alone, not even considering operating in echelon to create an effect.
I am all for supporting Ukraine, but it has to be done in a sustainable, realistic manner.
We have been training crews on M1s and Leopards for months. Yes, they are supposed to be operating in brigades. Yes, they will not be as fully trained as a western crew. But we are a year into the war. It has turned desultory in no small part because there are no full-strength tank brigades on either side. The numbers being provided, all types, exceed a tank brigade. That gives us 75% capable (training limitations) tank brigade with logistical limitations, to punch thru from Bakhmut to the Sea of Azov 102 miles away.
After the first 40 miles, the Azov coast would be in range of Himars batteries.
And 50 Ukrainian jets in the air would deny Russia air control over that line of advance for a period of time.
A 102 mile armored advance is achievable.
The Russian troops on the entire right flank of the Ukrainan advance would be cut off from primary supply lines.
This is not a high risk proposition we're talking about, given that we are well down inside the malestrom of war, where the orders of battle have a lot more to do with what IS on hand matters a lot more than what the textbooks say SHOULD be on hand...
The M1s, frankly, seem to obviously be just an ante-up to get the Germans to agree to ship the Leopards. Not really central to the initiative. Ukraine should trade them to another Nato member for some used Leopards to streamline the logs.
whiterock said:Most of the pieces I've read have indicated policy recognizes and is attempting to deal with the issue, ergo the M1's are not likely to be avail until later-year. Leopards will be deployable sooner, apparently.RMF5630 said:Didn't say I was against it, just that it is a sustainable and reasonable approach... Gonna be a painful learning curve.whiterock said:There are still 47 Russian-made,figher/bomber jet aircraft in Polish inventory. Romania has 21. Slovakia has 11. That's 79 airframes, that those three nations struggle to maintain, some key parts unavailable. Better to transfer them to die in combat defending Western interests than collect dust in a scrapyard somewhere. Ukraine can cannibalize them for parts and get at least 50 jets back in the air very quickly. Some within days. Whatever argument can be made about the limitations in time & capability such would afford, it is better than letting them rust on the ground next door.RMF5630 said:whiterock said:Ukraine can join NATO anytime two conditions are met: It applies, and Nato accepts. Nato is most certainly not going to accept Ukraine while it is engaged in a very hot war with Russia, as such would be a patent declaration of war against Russia. Ukraine knows this. That's why Ukraine is begging for arms & ammo from Nato countries. Ukraine can win the war if fully supplied.trey3216 said:Ukraine can join NATO under 1 and only 1 condition….they need total victory in their war versus Russia.whiterock said:Exactly.Doc Holliday said:Zelensky is saying that it will absolutely happen, not that it's on the table as an option.RMF5630 said:Of course he is. It is in his and Ukraine's best interest to add NATO to his defense. Why would anyone expect him not to play for NATO to enter the war???Redbrickbear said:
It is up to NATO to set the parameters of support, not Zelinsky. He will take whatever support we will give, it is nave and foolish to expect otherwise. Don't see the point of Wolfe's tweet besides dramatic effect.
Ukraine can push, publicly and privately, all it wants to for Nato membership. And such will have an impact on it's foreign relationships.
NATO is not obligated by any of that. Nor has NATO made any promises. NATO is doing what NATO should, exercising strategic ambiguity....not clearly indicating whether it will or will not admit Ukraine. That complicates Russian calculations.
I don't see a likely scenario for Ukraine entering Nato. Major issues: such would ratify the Russian excuse for the war in the first place, such would put MORE Russian/Nato divisions stationed across borders from each other, such would have opposition from Nato members. I would assess Turkey as a hard NO to Ukrainian membership. Crimea and much of southern Ukraine was once either integral or vassal to the Ottoman Empire. A weak, independent Ukrainian state is far more useful to Turkey than a peer state within Nato that could count on Article 5 protections.
The forces driving this war are as old as time. Turkey, if one were to spend all night drinking raki with Erdogan, has not given up on the romantic notion of one day returning those lands to a regime enforcing sharia law, as a protectorate of Turkey. That such is impossible in any practical scenario one could devise does not mean that such romance would not have influence over policy today.
I would be extremely reluctant to admit Ukraine to NATO. Would not close the door, but would want to see a couple decades to assess the stability of the Ukrainian society. By contrast, an independent Ukraine counting on partner status with Nato is a manageable scenario with limited short-term downside. A Ukrainian state careening between pro-West and pro-Russian factions is only a problem if that state is already a NATO ally. Nato has never had a scenario where undemocratic actions inside a member state has threatened to fracture the alliance. We should not court such a scenario by admitting unstable partners, particularly not when Russian armies are waiting to come to the aid of a country that has undemocratically chosen to withraw from Nato. The problems are myriad: Do we attack a Nato state to return them to an alliance? Do we invoke Article 5 on behalf of a regime in exile to fight to expel Russian troops from a Nato state which has invited them in? We did that in WWII. Do we do it today? Hard choices. Which are best avoided by winning the current conflict.
the size of Nato makes in virtually invulnerable to military attack.
the size of Nato makes it HIGHLY vulnerable to 5th column actions.
Ergo the need to keep Russian armies in Russia.......
Why?
Because Russia needs to be humiliated. Russia needs a face check in modern global affairs both politically and economically. Russia needs to understand that its long suffering, mafioso tactics have no business in an integrated world. That expansion by force is not a policy. That screaming Nazi at people you don't like (but oh so desperately want their land and for them to be integrated into your nation once you take it) is not a way of life, especially when you're acting as the Nazi in this scenario.
Then, and only then, can Ukraine be a part of NATO, because it won't matter if they're in nato anymore once Russia decides they don't want to be the heel
It is not a simple matter to just supply. NATO weapon systems require training. You can't just put 4 armored crewmen in a M1, let alone a battalion, and expect them to engage T-90s. That is not even considering the supply and maintenance to support that battalion. To make a dent, you are talking brigades. That is a generational change! To do it on the fly with a hodgepodge combination of Leopards, Challengers and M1s? You will need armor to dislodge Russia, infantry and artillery can only do so much against armor columns, especially since Russia owns the air space.
I would imagine aircraft are worse. F16s take 9 months to train on the aircraft alone, not even considering operating in echelon to create an effect.
I am all for supporting Ukraine, but it has to be done in a sustainable, realistic manner.
We have been training crews on M1s and Leopards for months. Yes, they are supposed to be operating in brigades. Yes, they will not be as fully trained as a western crew. But we are a year into the war. It has turned desultory in no small part because there are no full-strength tank brigades on either side. The numbers being provided, all types, exceed a tank brigade. That gives us 75% capable (training limitations) tank brigade with logistical limitations, to punch thru from Bakhmut to the Sea of Azov 102 miles away.
After the first 40 miles, the Azov coast would be in range of Himars batteries.
And 50 Ukrainian jets in the air would deny Russia air control over that line of advance for a period of time.
A 102 mile armored advance is achievable.
The Russian troops on the entire right flank of the Ukrainan advance would be cut off from primary supply lines.
This is not a high risk proposition we're talking about, given that we are well down inside the malestrom of war, where the orders of battle have a lot more to do with what IS on hand matters a lot more than what the textbooks say SHOULD be on hand...
The M1s, frankly, seem to obviously be just an ante-up to get the Germans to agree to ship the Leopards. Not really central to the initiative. Ukraine should trade them to another Nato member for some used Leopards to streamline the logs.
Also Challenger 2s.
And a lot of Leopard 1s that will be in support roles.
Moving most of our footprint to Poland would substantially elevate Polish influence in Europe and Nato, at Germany's expense. Downside is lines of communication would get harder and the easier solutions involve....overland Germany. So I'm mildly skeptical a massive shift could occur. But an Army base and an AF base would make a ton of sense. Trump admin planned to move F-16s out of Spandahlem to Aviano, to the bolster the southern Flank (Romania) and close down Spandahlem. War ultimately interrupted that. Would make more sense to just put them in Romania or Poland. Not doing so is....a message that we are less than fully committed.RMF5630 said:Yup. Germany should treat us a bit nicer...Quote:Why would Poland not want US troops? Just for the cash they bring alone.Quote:We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.Quote:Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.Quote:Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.Quote:yes, but....Quote:Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.Quote:that is a very fair point.Quote:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.Quote:
How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.
A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.
There is no upside to not winning.......
They are not going anywhere.
In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/
Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/
They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.
The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.
This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.
How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?
The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.
US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...
How many billions do we put into the Germany economy every year from our military bases and personnel? We can't even guess how much we have spent there since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
We still have at least 40,000 troops there in 40 major bases. And at one point we had 220 other bases during the cold war.
In terms of investment, infrastructure, payouts, contracts with local business, spending by service members in the local area....it has to be in the many many billions a year.
I am sure the German government knows the exact dollar figure because they are not interested in seeing the US leave.
Of course Poland would love to get the U.S. to decamp from Germany and move all their bases...and that sweet sweet revenue...to Poland.
There is still a whole string of orders that have to be followed for a nuke to be fired. People that aren't dead man walking and have families and kids. If Putin gives that order, the next move is a bullet in his head. There is no way the chain of command stays intact for what they will know is a death sentence. Even a low-grade tactical nuke will trigger a coup. Putin can be all the ex-KGB he wants, nobody is going to destroy Mother Russia for Putin...Canada2017 said:Putin is still ex KGB....he knows where the bodies are buried.trey3216 said:he's not gonna win this war and he knows it. It's all but lost as it sits today. "Mobilizing" the army away from the government may be his only shot to stay in power for any stretch. The walls are crashing in, and I don't believe for a second there will be a nuke fired because someone else is the one who has to follow the orders. Even China has turned their back on Russia in this one, aside from buying whatever minerals/commodities they can for $.50 on the dollar.Canada2017 said:trey3216 said:just like he wasn't bluffing about 3 days. Just like he wasn't bluffing about NATO countries giving Ukraine supplies. He's a dead man walking and he knows it. At least he can mobilize his "army" away from the Kremlin and his vacay spots so he won't die in the next 3 weeks.Canada2017 said:
Putin says he is not bluffing about using nukes .
Are we having fun yet ….are we cool again ?
A 'dead man walking ' in command of thousands of nuclear warheads is an incredibly dangerous individual.
A dead man walking who KNOWS his only chance of survival is to 'win' …….is even more dangerous.
Biden's handlers need to somehow find even the slightest amount of common sense and work a face saving deal with Putin .
One that allows him to survive ( for now ) yet regain Ukraine's lost territory.
And if going to die anyway .......might choose to take many others with him .
I agree. An airbase and an armored Brigade/Combat Team in Poland makes sense. Similar to what we are doing in Norway with the Marines. Step by step integration. I am all for moving bases to places with people and troops that want us there, will fight, and will pay their share.whiterock said:Moving most of our footprint to Poland would substantially elevate Polish influence in Europe and Nato, at Germany's expense. Downside is lines of communication would get harder and the easier solutions involve....overland Germany. So I'm mildly skeptical a massive shift could occur. But an Army base and an AF base would make a ton of sense. Trump admin planned to move F-16s out of Spandahlem to Aviano, to the bolster the southern Flank (Romania) and close down Spandahlem. War ultimately interrupted that. Would make more sense to just put them in Romania or Poland. Not doing so is....a message that we are less than fully committed.RMF5630 said:Yup. Germany should treat us a bit nicer...Quote:Why would Poland not want US troops? Just for the cash they bring alone.Quote:We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.Quote:Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.Quote:Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.Quote:yes, but....Quote:Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.Quote:that is a very fair point.Quote:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.Quote:
How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.
A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.
There is no upside to not winning.......
They are not going anywhere.
In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/
Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/
They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.
The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.
This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.
How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?
The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.
US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...
How many billions do we put into the Germany economy every year from our military bases and personnel? We can't even guess how much we have spent there since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
We still have at least 40,000 troops there in 40 major bases. And at one point we had 220 other bases during the cold war.
In terms of investment, infrastructure, payouts, contracts with local business, spending by service members in the local area....it has to be in the many many billions a year.
I am sure the German government knows the exact dollar figure because they are not interested in seeing the US leave.
Of course Poland would love to get the U.S. to decamp from Germany and move all their bases...and that sweet sweet revenue...to Poland.
Which apparently excludes most of Europe.RMF5630 said:I am all for moving bases to places with people and troops that want us there, will fight, and will pay their share.whiterock said:Moving most of our footprint to Poland would substantially elevate Polish influence in Europe and Nato, at Germany's expense. Downside is lines of communication would get harder and the easier solutions involve....overland Germany. So I'm mildly skeptical a massive shift could occur. But an Army base and an AF base would make a ton of sense. Trump admin planned to move F-16s out of Spandahlem to Aviano, to the bolster the southern Flank (Romania) and close down Spandahlem. War ultimately interrupted that. Would make more sense to just put them in Romania or Poland. Not doing so is....a message that we are less than fully committed.RMF5630 said:Yup. Germany should treat us a bit nicer...Quote:Why would Poland not want US troops? Just for the cash they bring alone.Quote:We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.Quote:Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.Quote:Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.Quote:yes, but....Quote:Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.Quote:that is a very fair point.Quote:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.Quote:
How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.
A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.
There is no upside to not winning.......
They are not going anywhere.
In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/
Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/
They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.
The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.
This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.
How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?
The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.
US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...
How many billions do we put into the Germany economy every year from our military bases and personnel? We can't even guess how much we have spent there since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
We still have at least 40,000 troops there in 40 major bases. And at one point we had 220 other bases during the cold war.
In terms of investment, infrastructure, payouts, contracts with local business, spending by service members in the local area....it has to be in the many many billions a year.
I am sure the German government knows the exact dollar figure because they are not interested in seeing the US leave.
Of course Poland would love to get the U.S. to decamp from Germany and move all their bases...and that sweet sweet revenue...to Poland.
RMF5630 said:I agree. An airbase and an armored Brigade/Combat Team in Poland makes sense. Similar to what we are doing in Norway with the Marines. Step by step integration. I am all for moving bases to places with people and troops that want us there, will fight, and will pay their share.whiterock said:Moving most of our footprint to Poland would substantially elevate Polish influence in Europe and Nato, at Germany's expense. Downside is lines of communication would get harder and the easier solutions involve....overland Germany. So I'm mildly skeptical a massive shift could occur. But an Army base and an AF base would make a ton of sense. Trump admin planned to move F-16s out of Spandahlem to Aviano, to the bolster the southern Flank (Romania) and close down Spandahlem. War ultimately interrupted that. Would make more sense to just put them in Romania or Poland. Not doing so is....a message that we are less than fully committed.RMF5630 said:Yup. Germany should treat us a bit nicer...Quote:Why would Poland not want US troops? Just for the cash they bring alone.Quote:We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.Quote:Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.Quote:Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.Quote:yes, but....Quote:Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.Quote:that is a very fair point.Quote:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.Quote:
How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.
A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.
There is no upside to not winning.......
They are not going anywhere.
In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/
Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/
They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.
The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.
This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.
How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?
The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.
US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...
How many billions do we put into the Germany economy every year from our military bases and personnel? We can't even guess how much we have spent there since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
We still have at least 40,000 troops there in 40 major bases. And at one point we had 220 other bases during the cold war.
In terms of investment, infrastructure, payouts, contracts with local business, spending by service members in the local area....it has to be in the many many billions a year.
I am sure the German government knows the exact dollar figure because they are not interested in seeing the US leave.
Of course Poland would love to get the U.S. to decamp from Germany and move all their bases...and that sweet sweet revenue...to Poland.
Poland and Romania are happy to take the cash and have military bases (economic centers) in their countries.
No one said they would actually fight.
My buddy in the army is a major…he was in Afghanistan and said that the Polish guys would have to be made to even go on patrol.
He said "all their crap equipment kept breaking down and they just wanted to sit in the sun and tan and listen to house music"
Crazy to remember that days before the invasion of Ukraine, American and world leaders were scrambling to stop the war, having conversations behind masks that make communication extremely difficult, especially for people this old. pic.twitter.com/r6c7h8qdj3
— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) March 5, 2023
Careful, Sam. You're sounding a little TrumpishSam Lowry said:Which apparently excludes most of Europe.RMF5630 said:I am all for moving bases to places with people and troops that want us there, will fight, and will pay their share.whiterock said:Moving most of our footprint to Poland would substantially elevate Polish influence in Europe and Nato, at Germany's expense. Downside is lines of communication would get harder and the easier solutions involve....overland Germany. So I'm mildly skeptical a massive shift could occur. But an Army base and an AF base would make a ton of sense. Trump admin planned to move F-16s out of Spandahlem to Aviano, to the bolster the southern Flank (Romania) and close down Spandahlem. War ultimately interrupted that. Would make more sense to just put them in Romania or Poland. Not doing so is....a message that we are less than fully committed.RMF5630 said:Yup. Germany should treat us a bit nicer...Quote:Why would Poland not want US troops? Just for the cash they bring alone.Quote:We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.Quote:Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.Quote:Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.Quote:yes, but....Quote:Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.Quote:that is a very fair point.Quote:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.Quote:
How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.
A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.
There is no upside to not winning.......
They are not going anywhere.
In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/
Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/
They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.
The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.
This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.
How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?
The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.
US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...
How many billions do we put into the Germany economy every year from our military bases and personnel? We can't even guess how much we have spent there since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
We still have at least 40,000 troops there in 40 major bases. And at one point we had 220 other bases during the cold war.
In terms of investment, infrastructure, payouts, contracts with local business, spending by service members in the local area....it has to be in the many many billions a year.
I am sure the German government knows the exact dollar figure because they are not interested in seeing the US leave.
Of course Poland would love to get the U.S. to decamp from Germany and move all their bases...and that sweet sweet revenue...to Poland.
Well, they did all that & then some.Redbrickbear said:Crazy to remember that days before the invasion of Ukraine, American and world leaders were scrambling to stop the war, having conversations behind masks that make communication extremely difficult, especially for people this old. pic.twitter.com/r6c7h8qdj3
— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) March 5, 2023
Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:I agree. An airbase and an armored Brigade/Combat Team in Poland makes sense. Similar to what we are doing in Norway with the Marines. Step by step integration. I am all for moving bases to places with people and troops that want us there, will fight, and will pay their share.whiterock said:Moving most of our footprint to Poland would substantially elevate Polish influence in Europe and Nato, at Germany's expense. Downside is lines of communication would get harder and the easier solutions involve....overland Germany. So I'm mildly skeptical a massive shift could occur. But an Army base and an AF base would make a ton of sense. Trump admin planned to move F-16s out of Spandahlem to Aviano, to the bolster the southern Flank (Romania) and close down Spandahlem. War ultimately interrupted that. Would make more sense to just put them in Romania or Poland. Not doing so is....a message that we are less than fully committed.RMF5630 said:Yup. Germany should treat us a bit nicer...Quote:Why would Poland not want US troops? Just for the cash they bring alone.Quote:We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.Quote:Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.Quote:Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.Quote:yes, but....Quote:Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.Quote:that is a very fair point.Quote:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.Quote:
How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.
A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.
There is no upside to not winning.......
They are not going anywhere.
In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/
Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/
They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.
The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.
This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.
How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?
The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.
US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...
How many billions do we put into the Germany economy every year from our military bases and personnel? We can't even guess how much we have spent there since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
We still have at least 40,000 troops there in 40 major bases. And at one point we had 220 other bases during the cold war.
In terms of investment, infrastructure, payouts, contracts with local business, spending by service members in the local area....it has to be in the many many billions a year.
I am sure the German government knows the exact dollar figure because they are not interested in seeing the US leave.
Of course Poland would love to get the U.S. to decamp from Germany and move all their bases...and that sweet sweet revenue...to Poland.
Poland and Romania are happy to take the cash and have military bases (economic centers) in their countries.
No one said they would actually fight.
My buddy in the army is a major…he was in Afghanistan and said that the Polish guys would have to be made to even go on patrol.
He said "all their crap equipment kept breaking down and they just wanted to sit in the sun and tan and listen to house music"
You guys are right, Europe is not worth it let's abandon our positions in NATO and move troops onto US shores. Everything will be fine. China, Russia, Iran, and N Korea will do the same. Just have Sam ask them
RMF5630 said:Redbrickbear said:RMF5630 said:I agree. An airbase and an armored Brigade/Combat Team in Poland makes sense. Similar to what we are doing in Norway with the Marines. Step by step integration. I am all for moving bases to places with people and troops that want us there, will fight, and will pay their share.whiterock said:Moving most of our footprint to Poland would substantially elevate Polish influence in Europe and Nato, at Germany's expense. Downside is lines of communication would get harder and the easier solutions involve....overland Germany. So I'm mildly skeptical a massive shift could occur. But an Army base and an AF base would make a ton of sense. Trump admin planned to move F-16s out of Spandahlem to Aviano, to the bolster the southern Flank (Romania) and close down Spandahlem. War ultimately interrupted that. Would make more sense to just put them in Romania or Poland. Not doing so is....a message that we are less than fully committed.RMF5630 said:Yup. Germany should treat us a bit nicer...Quote:Why would Poland not want US troops? Just for the cash they bring alone.Quote:We have never stationed them in former WP, true. But, this Ukraine move is changing that thinking. Antagonize Russia? THey are invading. Poland is screaming for NATO troops, even saying if Germany doesn't want them they will take them! They wanted our Heavy's that Obama and Trump pulled out. Russia threatens a NATO nation, all bets are off.Quote:Your analysis is sound up to the day Romania sees 60k Russian troops stationed in Odessa and Nato STILL refusing to station troops in Romania. (I mean, we've never stationed permanently any NATO troops in the former WP countries, in deference to Russia, to not antagonize Russia. Do we really think those same NATO members who've thought that way thus far are going to decide NOW to forward deploy troops to those countries? ) The failure to do so thus far is a statement. The failure to do that now or in the future also makes a statement. Neither statement will inspire confidence in Romania that they can count on Nato to prevent the conflict from starting. And remember the true lesson of the Russo-Ukrainian war = the cost of victory against Russia exceeds the capability of any of the former WP nations to bear alone.Quote:Romania is on the Euro and deeply integrated with the EU. They also see Ukraine and want nothing to do with Russia.Quote:yes, but....Quote:Sure, but we're talking about two different things now. We can defend Romania if we have to. That doesn't mean our policy needs to revolve around keeping Romania in NATO. It's not as if they bring much to the table in terms of strengthening the alliance. Strategically they're one of its weakest points, along with the Baltic states.Quote:that is a very fair point.Quote:This is why countries like Romania never should have joined NATO. The dilemma you describe is a predictable result of the policies you advocate.Quote:
How can you possibly ignore that? Beyond the patent weak-man argument of the remaining post, to suggest that we cannot make sound assessments, given Russian intentions and capabilities and MO, shows profound lack of understanding of history and foreign affairs.
Here's a scenario: Ukraine falls. Russia annexes everything east of the Dnieper, and the Ukrainian coast all the way to the Romanian and Moldovan borders. That was the manifest intent of their invasion. If/when that happens, the implications are:
1) Russia now has a supply chain to Transnistria, where a Donbas-type insurgency is underway as we argue. The ability to directly supply the Russian separatists by land means Russia effectively owns Moldova, given the relative size of Transnistria to the Moldovan state. Moldova cannot stop Russia. It immediately becomes a Russian puppet state, unless the West responds with support for the existing government, creating exactly the same dynamic as developed in Ukraine 2010-2022. How far will it go? What are you going to do? Are you going to let it happen? How does another Russian puppet state further US policy interests?
2) The rump Ukrainian state would remain - Lvov and Kiev. What is your policy? Do we just back off and let it go the way of Belarus? Or do we replay the same game we've played in Ukraine since 2014, only with a sharply weaker hand? Why on earth would we chose that option when we have a better one today?
3) Russian armies are currently encamped on 4 Nato borders (Poland, Baltics). If the Ukrainian rump state becomes Belarus 2.0, that number rises to 7. Each one of those seven states are functioning participatory democracies. How will Russian armies on their border impact politics? Will it stiffen their resolve (ala Poland), or will it weaken it (Hungary). For sure, it will not have "no effect." Will Russian efforts to influence their elections be enhanced by their control over Ukraine and Modlova?
4) In democracies, the pendulum swings. Current regimes will be replaced. Usually, that will be by parties with different ideas. How long before we see a party with softly or harshly anti-Nato or even pro-Russian policies swing to power? Wouldn't that increase the possibility of another Maidan crisis? For sure it increases the number of countries in which such could happen to 7 instead of 3.
5) So, you are SecState. All of the above has happened. (the course is certain, if we lose in Ukraine, only the timeline is in question). One odd morning before coffee, you get the phone call from your COS that the Romanian Army has just surrounded key government buildings in Bucharest. Some general you don't remember meeting is making an announcement that new elections will be held in 90 days. What do you do?
The answer is: the very first thing you do is kick yourself in the ass for a few minutes for not stopping Russia in the Donbas.
Because, now, you have to worry about that general announcing a withdrawal from Nato. You have to worry about Russia effectively controlling elections held by the Romanan military, almost certainly electing a pro-Russian government that will announce a withdrawal from Nato. What do you do when each of those things happen? Complicating things, there will likely be an exiled Romanian regime encamped somewhere demanding Article 5 protections. (serious implications follow). Do we invade a Nato member to restore an exiled regime? Remember, how you respond will be watched with somewhat more than passing interest in Budapest, Warsaw, Bratislava, Tallin, Riga, and Vilnius. We would have no proxy to fight for us. it's a Manichean option - we either let it happen, and deal with the consequences (sharply weaked Nato) or we commit my daughter and a hundred thousand or so more sons & daughters back into the fray. All because you won the argument that we had no business helping Ukraine.
Everything I've posted is plainly known/seen to anyone with a basic knowledge of "the area" and "the business." EVERYTHING Putin has said and done for 25 years has been dedicated to that goal....the goal of getting all the former WP nations out of Nato. The main reason we haven't stopped him yet? The argument of ripeness: Oh, Russia is paper tiger. Look how hard they had to work to subdue Gozny, they said. The faulty premise with that line of reasoning is that the Russian battle plan illustrates weakness. In fact, it's the opposite. Such a plan is just the Russian MO. "We will take what we want and we don't care how many people we kill on either side, how many lives we destroy on either side, how much economic destruction we inflict on either side. If we want it, we want it worse than you and we will happily outbleed you, no matter how long it takes." That reasoning sounds hollow. Unless Russia is your neighbor.
We know that Russia ideologically rejects classical liberalism and democracy, seeing them as threats to the Russian way of life. We know Putin has repeatedly stated about return of Russian hegemony over the entire USSR footprint. Look what he's actually done about it. Consistently. A predictable as sunshine in the morning. How on earth could anyone possibly think Ukraine will satisfy them?
As long as there is a single Ukrainian willing to die for his country, we should make sure he/she never fails for lack of arms & ammo. Every day of battle degrades the Russian war machine. Every day of battle pushes out into the future the time it will take Russia to rebuild. It is borderline madness to cut off the military supply lines to Ukraine, when the consequences are uniformly negative, short and long term, to US interests and actually significantly increase the prospects of escalation.
Your policy on Ukraine is well beyond undesirable.
Unfortunately, the question is "asked & answered." The decision has been made. We have a treaty obligation to defend Romania. We can't say "oh well, we shouldn't have done that in the first place." We have to honor the obligation or.....dare I say it....we confirm Zelenskyy's press conference comments about American credibility. We balk, all of Nato is a paper tiger.
A) have we ever had a departure from Nato?
and
B) how that departure happens is a very important thing.
and
C) any departure is a loss for the alliance. A Russian client state in Romania opens up the slavic parts of the Balkans to Donbas/Transnistria type nonense, which proliferates problems for all the remaining members.
and
D) see above about avoiding all that by just winning the damned proxy war we're in right now.
There is no upside to not winning.......
They are not going anywhere.
In fact they want more NATO troops in country....for both protection and for the money service members spend.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/short_news/romania-wants-increased-nato-and-us-presence-on-its-territory/
Little Ireland (5 million pop.) contributes more to the EU economy than all of Romania (pop. 19 million)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/316691/eu-budget-contributions-by-country/
They are a free rider on both the EU and NATO...and they are smart enough to realize they have a very good thing going.
The moment the Russians garrison troops and ships in Odessa, Romanian options are not longer solely about what they want to do. They now have to counterbalance every decision against how Moscow will react. Being intransigently pro-Nato has risks, for the country and for each politician. The pro-Nato leaders will, best case, go to the gulag when Russia restores hegemony.
This is why Russia wants to gain Ukraine back. It wants to increase its leverage in formerly controlled lands. Every mile its armies moves closer, that leverage increases.
How does allowing Russian influence in Romana to expand augur the to benefit of US interests?
The Nation I worry about leaving is Turkey, they have never been a fit.
US and NATO interests is for Russia to stay out of Ukraine. I think those worrying about the North (Finland, Sweden and Baltics) are wrong. Russia will go South to the Black Sea where it has more support from Georgia, Chechnya and even Iran, further from NATO's heart. If they start going into Romania, Moldova, and Bulgaria it will put pressure on Turkey and move the battle from NATO's strengths...
How many billions do we put into the Germany economy every year from our military bases and personnel? We can't even guess how much we have spent there since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Army_installations_in_Germany
We still have at least 40,000 troops there in 40 major bases. And at one point we had 220 other bases during the cold war.
In terms of investment, infrastructure, payouts, contracts with local business, spending by service members in the local area....it has to be in the many many billions a year.
I am sure the German government knows the exact dollar figure because they are not interested in seeing the US leave.
Of course Poland would love to get the U.S. to decamp from Germany and move all their bases...and that sweet sweet revenue...to Poland.
Poland and Romania are happy to take the cash and have military bases (economic centers) in their countries.
No one said they would actually fight.
My buddy in the army is a major…he was in Afghanistan and said that the Polish guys would have to be made to even go on patrol.
He said "all their crap equipment kept breaking down and they just wanted to sit in the sun and tan and listen to house music"
You guys are right, Europe is not worth it let's abandon our positions in NATO and move troops onto US shores. Everything will be fine. China, Russia, Iran, and N Korea will do the same. Just have Sam ask them
1. No one ever said to abandon Europe. We have huge investments in Europe (military and economic) and that is not gonna change.
2. That is different from saying that we need to expand NATO even more or put troops right on Russias doorstep.
This is the only piece (~15,000 words) you'll ever need to read on why Russia and Ukraine are fighting: https://t.co/CpCnUXUHKY
— Nemets (@Peter_Nimitz) March 5, 2023
Redbrickbear said:This is the only piece (~15,000 words) you'll ever need to read on why Russia and Ukraine are fighting: https://t.co/CpCnUXUHKY
— Nemets (@Peter_Nimitz) March 5, 2023
Partly.
Overlay a map of manufacturing, oil/gas deposits, and you'll see a far more obvious correlation.
And it all belongs, legally, to Ukraine.
Russia is a spent force.
Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Then it shouldn't take much longer to make them give up right?whiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Surely this proxy war will end within 5 years?!
Spent? Unlikelywhiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Incompetent and corrupt...oh yea.
Russia as 144 million people and is the largest land mass country on earth. And has almost as much farmland as the USA and as much (if not the most) natural resources as any nation on earth.
[Russia's natural resources reserves are worth $75 trillion by Statista's estimate. This amount incorporates, among other things, coal, oil, natural gas, gold, timber, and rare earth metals.
Russia holds the world's largest proved natural gas reserves at 1.32 quadrillion cubic feet, accounting for nearly 20% of the global total as of 2020.4 Russia also has the second largest gold reserves at 6,800 tons, or more than 12% of global total as of 2021]
A competent Russian State could easily field a well trained army of 5 million men and supply them with food, fuel, and modern (though not USA caliber) weapons in perpetuity.
The comment thread says it all:whiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
"It is awfull to think that someone actually has to write these in the MoD pr dept. It has less dignity than working as a IPR lawyer, which itself is slightly lower than working as a street prostitute."
whiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Not sure how when something was designed is supposed to prove they are low on ammo or a spent force.
Yes I get there have been a lot of improvements in shovels since then like folding, sharp edges, all metal, etc. but there are also so many things the military (or civilians) use daily that have barely changed or not changed at all since their design in the 1800s.
We could end the war this year if we'd open up the spigots wide enough to allow the Ukrainians to punch thru to the Sea of Azov.Doc Holliday said:Then it shouldn't take much longer to make them give up right?whiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Surely this proxy war will end within 5 years?!
The Russian Army is a spent force. Their attack has culminated (look up the word). They cannot supply their forces with rifle ammo and are ordering not bayonet charges, but SHOVEL charges. And still they cannot puncture the Ukrainian lines.Redbrickbear said:Spent? Unlikelywhiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Incompetent and corrupt...oh yea.
Russia as 144 million people and is the largest land mass country on earth. And has almost as much farmland as the USA and as much (if not the most) natural resources as any nation on earth.
[Russia's natural resources reserves are worth $75 trillion by Statista's estimate. This amount incorporates, among other things, coal, oil, natural gas, gold, timber, and rare earth metals.
Russia holds the world's largest proved natural gas reserves at 1.32 quadrillion cubic feet, accounting for nearly 20% of the global total as of 2020.4 Russia also has the second largest gold reserves at 6,800 tons, or more than 12% of global total as of 2021]
A competent Russian State could easily field a well trained army of 5 million men and supply them with food, fuel, and modern (though not USA caliber) weapons in perpetuity.
It does not matter how many millions of potential soldiers they have RIGHT NOW. They cannot clothe, feed, train, transport them to the front lines.
It does not matter how many millions of dollars of resources they have RIGHT NOW. They cannot assemble them, manufacture them, and transport them to the front lines.
I could go on an on about all the logistical limitations Russia faces, rails & trucks relative to the current battlefield. Bottom line is, the Russian Army is shattered. It is a spent force. It will take them 5-10 years to rebuild back to their status 12 months ago (which wasn't very damned good.) To get better than where they were then will take commitments they have never, not once in their history, ever done....to totally transform they way they fight war.
Quit reading Russian propaganda.
Odd take.cowboycwr said:whiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Not sure how when something was designed is supposed to prove they are low on ammo or a spent force.
Yes I get there have been a lot of improvements in shovels since then like folding, sharp edges, all metal, etc. but there are also so many things the military (or civilians) use daily that have barely changed or not changed at all since their design in the 1800s.
Fully automatic squad rifles are quite a big improvement in modern warfare capabilities. So why are Russian soldiers charging trenches with a shovel unchanged since the 1800's?
Answer: There aren't enough rifles and rifle ammunition at the front lines, so the soldiers are fighting hand to hand. Against Ukrainians who do have fully automatic squad rifles.
.
Statista is not Russian propaganda.whiterock said:The Russian Army is a spent force. Their attack has culminated (look up the word). They cannot supply their forces with rifle ammo and are ordering not bayonet charges, but SHOVEL charges. And still they cannot puncture the Ukrainian lines.Redbrickbear said:Spent? Unlikelywhiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Incompetent and corrupt...oh yea.
Russia as 144 million people and is the largest land mass country on earth. And has almost as much farmland as the USA and as much (if not the most) natural resources as any nation on earth.
[Russia's natural resources reserves are worth $75 trillion by Statista's estimate. This amount incorporates, among other things, coal, oil, natural gas, gold, timber, and rare earth metals.
Russia holds the world's largest proved natural gas reserves at 1.32 quadrillion cubic feet, accounting for nearly 20% of the global total as of 2020.4 Russia also has the second largest gold reserves at 6,800 tons, or more than 12% of global total as of 2021]
A competent Russian State could easily field a well trained army of 5 million men and supply them with food, fuel, and modern (though not USA caliber) weapons in perpetuity.
It does not matter how many millions of potential soldiers they have RIGHT NOW. They cannot clothe, feed, train, transport them to the front lines.
It does not matter how many millions of dollars of resources they have RIGHT NOW. They cannot assemble them, manufacture them, and transport them to the front lines.
I could go on an on about all the logistical limitations Russia faces, rails & trucks relative to the current battlefield. Bottom line is, the Russian Army is shattered. It is a spent force. It will take them 5-10 years to rebuild back to their status 12 months ago (which wasn't very damned good.) To get better than where they were then will take commitments they have never, not once in their history, ever done....to totally transform they way they fight war.
Quit reading Russian propaganda.
https://www.statista.com/
I never said the current Russian State was competent or non-corrupt or have huge amounts of organizational disfunction.
I did say (and provided you relevant info) that Russia is a massive country with lots of productive farmland and vast vast material resources.
They could easily equip a large military and provide it with weapons, food, and provisions for a long time.
whiterock said:Odd take.cowboycwr said:whiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Not sure how when something was designed is supposed to prove they are low on ammo or a spent force.
Yes I get there have been a lot of improvements in shovels since then like folding, sharp edges, all metal, etc. but there are also so many things the military (or civilians) use daily that have barely changed or not changed at all since their design in the 1800s.
Fully automatic squad rifles are quite a big improvement in modern warfare capabilities. So why are Russian soldiers charging trenches with a shovel unchanged since the 1800's?
Answer: There aren't enough rifles and rifle ammunition at the front lines, so the soldiers are fighting hand to hand. Against Ukrainians who do have fully automatic squad rifles.
.
But that isn't what the tweet says. It says they are out of ammo and then talks about a shovel and when it was designed. It doesn't say that is all they have as a weapon
And if the fighting is hand to hand then an automatic rifle isn't as useful then if you can get the barrel pointed to your target and it is just a bashing instrument at that time. So again the date of design is not an issue.
I am with you, I didn't get the point of the tweet. So, the shovel was designed in the 1800's. Some would say that it is better than spending millions designing its replacement that does the same thing.cowboycwr said:whiterock said:Odd take.cowboycwr said:whiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Not sure how when something was designed is supposed to prove they are low on ammo or a spent force.
Yes I get there have been a lot of improvements in shovels since then like folding, sharp edges, all metal, etc. but there are also so many things the military (or civilians) use daily that have barely changed or not changed at all since their design in the 1800s.
Fully automatic squad rifles are quite a big improvement in modern warfare capabilities. So why are Russian soldiers charging trenches with a shovel unchanged since the 1800's?
Answer: There aren't enough rifles and rifle ammunition at the front lines, so the soldiers are fighting hand to hand. Against Ukrainians who do have fully automatic squad rifles.
.
But that isn't what the tweet says. It says they are out of ammo and then talks about a shovel and when it was designed. It doesn't say that is all they have as a weapon
And if the fighting is hand to hand then an automatic rifle isn't as useful then if you can get the barrel pointed to your target and it is just a bashing instrument at that time. So again the date of design is not an issue.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/georgia-whose-country-is-it-anyway/
Parliamentary majority wants closer regulation of foreign-funded NGOs. Washington and Brussels object. A second Color Revolution in the offing?
In the country of Georgia, Parliament is considering a bill that would require NGOs that get over 20 percent of their funding from abroad to register as foreign agents. The bill passed today, over a threatened presidential veto. There were protests on the streets. And lo, a top Color Revolutionary herself weighed in last week:
Parliamentary majority wants closer regulation of foreign-funded NGOs. Washington and Brussels object. A second Color Revolution in the offing?
In the country of Georgia, Parliament is considering a bill that would require NGOs that get over 20 percent of their funding from abroad to register as foreign agents. The bill passed today, over a threatened presidential veto. There were protests on the streets. And lo, a top Color Revolutionary herself weighed in last week:
Georgia’s proposed foreign agent laws gravely threaten Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic future and the ability of Georgians to fulfill their own economic, social, and other aspirations. I call upon the Georgian Parliament to drop these proposed laws.
— Samantha Power (@PowerUSAID) March 2, 2023
"Hundreds of thousands of men dead…women most affected"
HILLARY CLINTON: "Women & children are the primary victims of conflict & of climate change & there is no place that unfortunately, tragically, shows us that more dramatically than Ukraine today." pic.twitter.com/G3OezXugyL
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) March 8, 2023
Yet they don't, and they won't.Redbrickbear said:Spent? Unlikelywhiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Incompetent and corrupt...oh yea.
Russia as 144 million people and is the largest land mass country on earth. And has almost as much farmland as the USA and as much (if not the most) natural resources as any nation on earth.
[Russia's natural resources reserves are worth $75 trillion by Statista's estimate. This amount incorporates, among other things, coal, oil, natural gas, gold, timber, and rare earth metals.
Russia holds the world's largest proved natural gas reserves at 1.32 quadrillion cubic feet, accounting for nearly 20% of the global total as of 2020.4 Russia also has the second largest gold reserves at 6,800 tons, or more than 12% of global total as of 2021]
A competent Russian State could easily field a well trained army of 5 million men and supply them with food, fuel, and modern (though not USA caliber) weapons in perpetuity.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
They could, but they can't and won't.Redbrickbear said:Statista is not Russian propaganda.whiterock said:The Russian Army is a spent force. Their attack has culminated (look up the word). They cannot supply their forces with rifle ammo and are ordering not bayonet charges, but SHOVEL charges. And still they cannot puncture the Ukrainian lines.Redbrickbear said:Spent? Unlikelywhiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Incompetent and corrupt...oh yea.
Russia as 144 million people and is the largest land mass country on earth. And has almost as much farmland as the USA and as much (if not the most) natural resources as any nation on earth.
[Russia's natural resources reserves are worth $75 trillion by Statista's estimate. This amount incorporates, among other things, coal, oil, natural gas, gold, timber, and rare earth metals.
Russia holds the world's largest proved natural gas reserves at 1.32 quadrillion cubic feet, accounting for nearly 20% of the global total as of 2020.4 Russia also has the second largest gold reserves at 6,800 tons, or more than 12% of global total as of 2021]
A competent Russian State could easily field a well trained army of 5 million men and supply them with food, fuel, and modern (though not USA caliber) weapons in perpetuity.
It does not matter how many millions of potential soldiers they have RIGHT NOW. They cannot clothe, feed, train, transport them to the front lines.
It does not matter how many millions of dollars of resources they have RIGHT NOW. They cannot assemble them, manufacture them, and transport them to the front lines.
I could go on an on about all the logistical limitations Russia faces, rails & trucks relative to the current battlefield. Bottom line is, the Russian Army is shattered. It is a spent force. It will take them 5-10 years to rebuild back to their status 12 months ago (which wasn't very damned good.) To get better than where they were then will take commitments they have never, not once in their history, ever done....to totally transform they way they fight war.
Quit reading Russian propaganda.
https://www.statista.com/
I never said the current Russian State was competent or non-corrupt or have huge amounts of organizational disfunction.
I did say (and provided you relevant info) that Russia is a massive country with lots of productive farmland and vast vast material resources.
They could easily equip a large military and provide it with weapons, food, and provisions for a long time.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
you still miss the point. The amount of resources are irrelevant if they are unavailable in the battlefield. Theoretically, they should be able to do it. But they haven't. And now they can't. It will take YEARS for them to get back to where they started. They cannot even get their reserves to the front lines.Redbrickbear said:Statista is not Russian propaganda.whiterock said:The Russian Army is a spent force. Their attack has culminated (look up the word). They cannot supply their forces with rifle ammo and are ordering not bayonet charges, but SHOVEL charges. And still they cannot puncture the Ukrainian lines.Redbrickbear said:Spent? Unlikelywhiterock said:
Russia is a spent force.Russian reservists short on ammo fighting with shovels designed in 1869: report https://t.co/zsriHFliab pic.twitter.com/G8bXchgsNx
— New York Post (@nypost) March 6, 2023
Incompetent and corrupt...oh yea.
Russia as 144 million people and is the largest land mass country on earth. And has almost as much farmland as the USA and as much (if not the most) natural resources as any nation on earth.
[Russia's natural resources reserves are worth $75 trillion by Statista's estimate. This amount incorporates, among other things, coal, oil, natural gas, gold, timber, and rare earth metals.
Russia holds the world's largest proved natural gas reserves at 1.32 quadrillion cubic feet, accounting for nearly 20% of the global total as of 2020.4 Russia also has the second largest gold reserves at 6,800 tons, or more than 12% of global total as of 2021]
A competent Russian State could easily field a well trained army of 5 million men and supply them with food, fuel, and modern (though not USA caliber) weapons in perpetuity.
It does not matter how many millions of potential soldiers they have RIGHT NOW. They cannot clothe, feed, train, transport them to the front lines.
It does not matter how many millions of dollars of resources they have RIGHT NOW. They cannot assemble them, manufacture them, and transport them to the front lines.
I could go on an on about all the logistical limitations Russia faces, rails & trucks relative to the current battlefield. Bottom line is, the Russian Army is shattered. It is a spent force. It will take them 5-10 years to rebuild back to their status 12 months ago (which wasn't very damned good.) To get better than where they were then will take commitments they have never, not once in their history, ever done....to totally transform they way they fight war.
Quit reading Russian propaganda.
https://www.statista.com/
I never said the current Russian State was competent or non-corrupt or have huge amounts of organizational disfunction.
I did say (and provided you relevant info) that Russia is a massive country with lots of productive farmland and vast vast material resources.
They could easily equip a large military and provide it with weapons, food, and provisions for a long time.
IF.
If Ukraine has been laying up stores of arms, ammo, food, fresh troops, vehicles, gasoline…….etc…. Let's just see what happens when Ukraine launches a counteroffensive. It's a 100 mile push to the Sea of Azov, which would sever the long lateral line of communications to the Russian Kherson front. That will force a Russian withdrawal of that entire front to the Crimean peninsula proper. Then the battle lines will be back close to the starting of the war.
Unless the legislation excluded humanitarian NGOs, it's a stupid law.Redbrickbear said:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/georgia-whose-country-is-it-anyway/
Parliamentary majority wants closer regulation of foreign-funded NGOs. Washington and Brussels object. A second Color Revolution in the offing?
In the country of Georgia, Parliament is considering a bill that would require NGOs that get over 20 percent of their funding from abroad to register as foreign agents. The bill passed today, over a threatened presidential veto. There were protests on the streets. And lo, a top Color Revolutionary herself weighed in last week:Georgia’s proposed foreign agent laws gravely threaten Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic future and the ability of Georgians to fulfill their own economic, social, and other aspirations. I call upon the Georgian Parliament to drop these proposed laws.
— Samantha Power (@PowerUSAID) March 2, 2023
It's directly modeled on similar laws that Russia passed in recent years, which they then used to crack down on many forms of dissent.