rainman

Trump Hands Putin Major Geopolitical Victory

Recommended Posts

The U.S. military unveiled plans to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany, in fallout from President Donald Trump’s long-simmering feud with Berlin but said it will keep nearly half of those forces in Europe to address tension with Russia. Still the U.S. is doing a huge favor to Putin weakening NATO with this withdrawal. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-military/u-s-to-withdraw-about-12000-troops-from-germany-but-nearly-half-to-stay-in-europe-idUSKCN24U20L

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, rainman said:

The U.S. military unveiled plans to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany, in fallout from President Donald Trump’s long-simmering feud with Berlin but said it will keep nearly half of those forces in Europe to address tension with Russia. Still the U.S. is doing a huge favor to Putin weakening NATO with this withdrawal. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-military/u-s-to-withdraw-about-12000-troops-from-germany-but-nearly-half-to-stay-in-europe-idUSKCN24U20L

Russia is a paranoid country. Why is that? Oh wait they keep getting invaded! Sweden, France, Germany, others I'm not going to mention. The odds that Putin wants to invade Germany? Roughly 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% 

We've been there for over 70 years, and those bases aren't free. Germany hasn't kicked in their fair share ever and Trump said enough's enough. It's not like we're leaving entirely, we're just scaling back. But yeah, Trump bad, got it. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is moving them because Germany refuses to meet its defense spending commitments. How his cajoling NATO members to spend more on defense is a "capitulation to the Kremlin?"

Basically sums up most headlines. Write sensational headlines, even when there's nothing sensational about the story. This is so clear with Trump. I really don't like the guy, bt the reporting on him is annoying. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that what is NATO doing now can be hardly called "defense" - be it the illegal invasion to Iraq started under a fabricated casus belli (Iraq did not have WMD), that turned Iraq into chaos for decades and gave rise to Islamic State, invasion to Libya that similarly turned the country from the richest African state to a scorched battleground and staging area for mass migration to Europe (an act that might very well be another american dagger in Europe's back), or the nonsensical war in Syria that drags on almost 2 decades and nobody can clearly explain its purpose, objectives or justification (other than lucrative source of income for the US military-industrial complex). 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

The European countries that are members of NATO have several times more population than Russia. Even though they spend less than 2% of GDP on the army, they still spend at least several times more than Russia.

As far as I can remember, Great Britain hysterically accuses Russia of being aggressive. Only if it is really so afraid of Russia, why UK plans nowadays in economic crisis  to disband some soldiers and wants to have smaller land army from 74,000 to 55,000 soldiers? Taking under consideration that UK has something like 65 milion population its rather a very small army

Take it under perspective

During the Cold War, 300,000 Americans  stationed in West Germany alone, and on the other side  there were about 350,000 Russians. Now some 35,000 Americans  are in Germany. Germany is actually trying to spend as little as possible on the army, and is investing several billion a year in the Russian economy - last year something like 3 or   billions euros.

The brutal truth is, and I know it will sound ironic, but the atomic bomb is the greatest historic achievement to preserve global peace, apart from some proxy wars and minor armed conflicts.

Edited by Tomasz
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, rainman said:

The U.S. military unveiled plans to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany, in fallout from President Donald Trump’s long-simmering feud with Berlin but said it will keep nearly half of those forces in Europe to address tension with Russia. Still the U.S. is doing a huge favor to Putin weakening NATO with this withdrawal. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-military/u-s-to-withdraw-about-12000-troops-from-germany-but-nearly-half-to-stay-in-europe-idUSKCN24U20L

 

Two things comes to mind

1. The trust fund has been ended.

2. TIme to readjust the budget to things that matter.

Europe is quite capable of implementing hi tech defenses of their own design. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/02/19/europe-has-six-times-as-many-weapon-systems-as-the-u-s-infographic/#4c6a01dd6e7a

 

 

20180219_Weapons (1).jpg

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really think that moving force deployments out of Germany and forward towards Russia in Romania and Poland would be a win for Putin, even support in Belgium is actually allowing ship deployment of land forces into such Baltic sea targets as Kaliningrad and to protect Baltic states.

The deployments in Germany were not really useful since the 1990s as they had remained too far back while the front line of NATO moved East.

As pointed out, EU military resources are and remain the NATO force in Europe, as had been the case since the 1960s after Europe had rebuilt and the US gradually removed deployments by 2/3 in the later cold war era. That was exactly the point of having NATO. The US contribution had, and so far remains, to provide the Naval air and space security.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

6 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

The problem is that what is NATO doing now can be hardly called "defense" - be it the illegal invasion to Iraq started under a fabricated casus belli (Iraq did not have WMD), that turned Iraq into chaos for decades and gave rise to Islamic State, invasion to Libya that similarly turned the country from the richest African state to a scorched battleground and staging area for mass migration to Europe (an act that might very well be another american dagger in Europe's back), or the nonsensical war in Syria that drags on almost 2 decades and nobody can clearly explain its purpose, objectives or justification (other than lucrative source of income for the US military-industrial complex). 

The US didn’t invade Libya, the Europeans were instigators of NATO’s involvement, quoting Obama “leading from behind...”

Iraq was hardly stable or peaceful before US invasion. Ie. Iran/Iraq war, Iraq invasion of Kuwait. 

Syria was a popular revolt triggered by a historic drought. It’s origins are a mystery to you because you choose not to look.

I heard it was the CCP in cahoots with Moscow that started the Syria war, after all those are the two countries that benefited the most.

See, we all hear the craziest things, maybe spend a little time vetting incoming information.

Edited by Strangelovesurfing
  • Like 3
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

9 hours ago, rainman said:

The U.S. military unveiled plans to withdraw about 12,000 troops from Germany, in fallout from President Donald Trump’s long-simmering feud with Berlin but said it will keep nearly half of those forces in Europe to address tension with Russia. Still the U.S. is doing a huge favor to Putin weakening NATO with this withdrawal. 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-germany-military/u-s-to-withdraw-about-12000-troops-from-germany-but-nearly-half-to-stay-in-europe-idUSKCN24U20L

 

It is not America's job to defend Europe for free. They should be paying the full bill. We have spent far more than we should have since 1945. What have we gotten for our effort but aggravation from the European Union? I spent 26 months defending Germany 1962 to 1965. At least in those days we were needed and appreciated because Germany could not defend itself. In fact Russia could have overrun much of Germany unless we used tactical nuclear weapons. We can still stop Russia if we have to, but Europe needs to be forced to defend itself first. I would rather help Eastern Europe, which still needs our help. 

Your reference states that the high number of weapons systems is a problem rather than a strength because they are all different and very hard to coordinate in a defensive strategy. Did you read the article?

 

Edited by ronwagn
addition
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tomasz said:

The brutal truth is, and I know it will sound ironic, but the atomic bomb is the greatest historic achievement to preserve global peace, apart from some proxy wars and minor armed conflicts.

I wouldn’t call the second Congo War, aka Great War of Africa, a minor armed conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

5 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Two things comes to mind

1. The trust fund has been ended.

2. TIme to readjust the budget to things that matter.

Europe is quite capable of implementing hi tech defenses of their own design. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2018/02/19/europe-has-six-times-as-many-weapon-systems-as-the-u-s-infographic/#4c6a01dd6e7a

 

 

20180219_Weapons (1).jpg

 Does your chart refer to only European based weapon systems? It does not align with anything else I have seen or heard.

Please compare to this. https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-nato-members.asp

 

Edited by ronwagn
error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

It is not America's job to defend Europe for free.

America was never defending Europe, it was just a comfortable justification for its predatory colonial wars and the ages-old "divide and conquer" approach to ensuring distant threat can never grow strong enough (i.e. throwing wrenches into the EU decision process via eager to please Britain, bombing Yugoslavia to non-existence while snatching a few lucrative deals here and there, etc.). 

Even when hypothetical Russian invasion to Estonia was discussed, US newspapers published articles like "We won't sacrifice Chicago for Tallinn". 

What I am interested to see if Americans return the German gold that is "deposited" in Fort Knox. I believe it when I see it. 

  • Like 1
  • Rolling Eye 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

22 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

The US didn’t invade Libya, the Europeans were instigators of NATO’s involvement, quoting Obama “leading from behind...”

Iraq was hardly stable or peaceful before US invasion. Ie. Iran/Iraq war, Iraq invasion of Kuwait. 

Syria was a popular revolt triggered by a historic drought. It’s origins are a mystery to you because you choose not to look.

I heard it was the CCP in cahoots with Moscow that started the Syria war, after all those are the two countries that benefited the most.

See, we all hear the craziest things, maybe spend a little time vetting incoming information.

Personally i admire Trumps solution...take the oil/money from both Isis and Syria....then hand things over to Russia and Turkey....Go ahead gentlemen it all yours...Moving on to Iran...well they have been isolated in the world community and are financially broken they did get a few old rusty tankers out the deal and just today are playing war game with wooden ships....Big toys for big boys...such is life.

The above comments reflect on governing bodies and not the good citizens of those countries... I cannot help but say...Will your mileage vary on the above opinions...but of course comes to mind..simply priceless.

Edited by Eyes Wide Open
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 Does your chart refer to only European based weapon systems? It does not align with anything else I have seen or heard.

Please compare to this. https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-nato-members.asp

 

I believe these are figures for deployments in Europe

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Personally i admire Trumps solution...take the oil/money from both Isis and Syria....then hand things over to Russia and Turkey....Go ahead gentlemen it all yours...Moving on to Iran...well they have been isolated in the world community and are financially broken they did get a few old rusty tankers out the deal and just today are playing war game with wooden ships....Big toys for big boys...such is life.

The above comments reflect on governing bodies and not the good citizens of those countries... I cannot help but say...Will your mileage vary...but of course comes to mind..simply priceless.

just that those ships are supposed to represent US carriers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

The US didn’t invade Libya, the Europeans were instigators of NATO’s involvement, quoting Obama “leading from behind...”

Iraq was hardly stable or peaceful before US invasion. Ie. Iran/Iraq war, Iraq invasion of Kuwait. 

Syria was a popular revolt triggered by a historic drought. It’s origins are a mystery to you because you choose not to look.

I heard it was the CCP in cahoots with Moscow that started the Syria war, after all those are the two countries that benefited the most.

See, we all hear the craziest things, maybe spend a little time vetting incoming information.

Let me call out some of your lies. US had covert operatives aiding the rebels long before the open involvement stated. Than, at the pretense of "enforcing a no-fly zone" (UN resolution), they actually bombed Quadaffi's ground installations and forces. EU then stupidly took the baton and finished the killing, to its own detriment - the refugees flow through the war-torn Lybia to European shores till this day.

"Iraq was hardly peaceful" is not a reason for war. What happened there was a war crime, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should have been tried for it before the international court. The result was hundred of thousands of dead civilians, utterly destroyed country where normal civilian life was difficult to impossible, ravaged by various religious factions fighting for power. 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

just that those ships are supposed to represent US carriers.

Yes Oro i get that, with that being said i wish to compliment you for your work and insights you have contributed to this forum and myself. I to experienced covid and your commentary is spot on.

Now as to these bath tub toy's.....and they are just that. Let them play dance and cry Havoc....Let us not forget the first war in Iraq...THE MOTHER OF ALL BATTLES!

Looking back it was such a foolish exercise it almost defies imagination today. Weeks if not months and billions of dollars were and most importantly hundred of thousand live were lost. Just so the US could push a few buttons and destroy and country in weeks....No War mind you just wholesale destruction.

Now to the point..if a few battle groups were to wander into that region in full battle alert there would not be one boat within 300 miles that was not friendly nor would there be a plane in the sky...as ive said bath tub games.

Perhaps the most tragic part of this new world is the fact how far hi tech has taken us...how utterly devastating it can and would be. A thought here...traversing a desert with tanks and navigation was thought to be a revolution at one time. Today my 90 yr old mother could ask Siri to take to Bagdad...and of course play good old Frank whiles shes enjoying the scenery...Providing the sattelite channel would allow her such nicety's...such is life

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

 Does your chart refer to only European based weapon systems? It does not align with anything else I have seen or heard.

Please compare to this. https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing-nato-members.asp

 

That is a very illuminating part of this conversation, the link I provided merely show equipment and clearly demonstrates they have the hard resources.

Once again it does point out US citizens standing in harm's way defending other nations sovernity and we are paying for IT...One cannot make this stuff up.

Then there is the US nuclear arsenal sitting on there soil...And we pay for that and to maintain it...

Meanwhile here in Portlandia Anftia is leaving the building...and tens of millions of dollars in destruction...And they say our constitution is being volated..Ohh what a world.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Let me call out some of your lies. US had covert operatives aiding the rebels long before the open involvement stated. Than, at the pretense of "enforcing a no-fly zone" (UN resolution), they actually bombed Quadaffi's ground installations and forces. EU then stupidly took the baton and finished the killing, to its own detriment - the refugees flow through the war-torn Lybia to European shores till this day.

"Iraq was hardly peaceful" is not a reason for war. What happened there was a war crime, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should have been tried for it before the international court. The result was hundred of thousands of dead civilians, utterly destroyed country where normal civilian life was difficult to impossible, ravaged by various religious factions fighting for power. 

The second Iraq war was the finale of the 1st Iraq war. The first war never ended.

If their was any operatives (any proof?) that’s not an invasion. Again you might want to review your history. It was European nations doing the vast majority of the bombings in Lybia,  the US’s main contribution was logistical support, tankers, munitions etc.

For someone who’s supposedly from the Czech republic you sure spread the CCP party line, line for line.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

It’s really not hard to find recorded history. Look at all those countries involved, boy oh boy I’ll bet those Europeans felt their own countries stabbed them in the back, or would that be the face 🤔

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

2 hours ago, 0R0 said:

just that those ships are supposed to represent US carriers.

The Gulf is not friendly territory for carriers anymore. The carrier air wing’s need new plane/drones with ~1.5k mile range. The drone tanker will be ready ~2023. Skyborg drone system the Air Force is hustling on should be used as a template for the navy.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/7/28/air-force-to-fly-new-skyborg-drones-next-year

 F-35C doesn't have the legs without a couple drone tankers.

https://www.boeing.com/defense/mq25/

57 minutes ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

That is a very illuminating part of this conversation, the link I provided merely show equipment and clearly demonstrates they have the hard resources.

The sad part is many European nations have better interoperability with the US then with each other.

Edited by Strangelovesurfing
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

The Gulf is not friendly territory for carriers anymore.

 F-35C doesn't have the legs without a couple drone tankers.

https://www.boeing.com/defense/mq25/

The sad part is many European nations have better interoperability with the US then with each other.

Good Grief.  F35C has more range than the F18 superhornet or F14D... 

You really need better sources...

Only thing you got right is that the gulf is not friendly territory.... and it never has been so... why bother posting such drivel?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

20180219_Weapons (1).jpg

I know Forbes publishes useless drivel, but you do not have to join them.  😀  That graph should be completely EMPTY of USA forces based in Europe.  Unless you think this is actual totals... 😆

PS: France etc had so few bombs that when they attacked Libya they had to ask the USA for bombs after a couple days...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I know Forbes publishes useless drivel, but you do not have to join them.  😀  That graph should be completely EMPTY of USA forces based in Europe.  Unless you think this is actual totals... 😆

PS: France etc had so few bombs that when they attacked Libya they had to ask the USA for bombs after a couple days...

Where is my perception bad? The captioning does state systems, not forces. As to France...there is no mention to their say readiness...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Where is my perception bad? The captioning does state systems, not forces. As to France...there is no mention to their say readiness...

You can't honestly be this dense... but then I keep being surprised...

Big boy hint here: NO Europe does not have more systems than the USA does.  It is not even close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

You can't honestly be this dense... but then I keep being surprised...

Big boy hint here: NO Europe does not have more systems than the USA does.  It is not even close. 

Dense....yes great word. So the US has more fighting systems/ hardware in Europe than all of the European body?

Let you and I clear some dense fog shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.