Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2024 17:47:15 GMT
In my lifetime Iceland has never had a standing army, only a coastguard, look at where they are on the map. But they do cooperate in NATO and allow the use of their land for NATO. In a world war is that enough? If China begins a large expansion war into Taiwan and America gets involved. At the same time Russia invades Eastern Europe will NATO act as one? Or will they split? Insofar as Iceland is concerned it has a population of only a bit under 378,000. That is only some one and a half times the population of Plymouth. It's strategic position is far more valuable to the rest of us as a base than any military contribution it could possibly make. The UK armed forces number less than 200,000. That is one person for every 300 of the population. For Iceland to do the same would only result in armed forces personnel of about 1500. Which is chickenfeed. It would be more useful for it to make any contribution as a financial one. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 15, 2024 18:00:56 GMT
In a world war is that enough? If China begins a large expansion war into Taiwan and America gets involved. At the same time Russia invades Eastern Europe will NATO act as one? Or will they split? Insofar as Iceland is concerned it has a population of only a bit under 378,000. That is only some one and a half times the population of Plymouth. It's strategic position is far more valuable to the rest of us as a base than any military contribution it could possibly make. The UK armed forces number less than 200,000. That is one person for every 300 of the population. For Iceland to do the same would only result in armed forces personnel of about 1500. Which is chickenfeed. It would be more useful for it to make any contribution as a financial one. Fair do's. Iceland was just an easy example. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 15, 2024 20:14:05 GMT
Zany, a bit like Iceland your example of Finland is a bit odd. I think most people if looking for an example of a NATO country under potential threat from Russia would have reached for Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia. Not sure it’s critical to your central argument though, so suggest we don’t allow ourselves to be diverted here.
Your idea that there is a magic money tree that allows unlimited borrowing is a weird one. If it’s true let’s borrow unlimited funds , sort out all our public services and hey why not let’s borrow enough to pay all our citizens a universal income of let’s say £100k per year and let’s get rid of income tax too. If only the world worked like that…..
To be honest your argument has bounced around a bit and I am not sure what you are claiming now. Perhaps I am just getting old and have failed to understand. I think you might be claiming that Russia could increase its military spending tenfold (funded by selling off unspecified assets to India although not clear why they don’t grow a magic money tree of their own ) and hence just in case you want to increase the UK military spending from 2% to 2.5%. Even in that unlikely scenario you have not shown any evidence of whether an increase from the existing 2% or whether 2.5% is enough or make any difference at all. It just seems to be an arbitrary figure to counter an entirely imaginary threat.
Meanwhile as I am sure you recognise at present Western Europe alone outspends Russia 5 to 1 on military spending and the evidence of Ukraine is that even very very limited Western military involvement in Ukraine (no troops, no aircraft, no tanks etc etc) has succeeded in stopping the Russian advance to around 100 miles from their border. The idea that the Russian army is capable of pushing on to Warsaw against a far more committed European defence is frankly a fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 15, 2024 20:38:37 GMT
Zany, a bit like Iceland your example of Finland is a bit odd. I think most people if looking for an example of a NATO country under potential threat from Russia would have reached for Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia. Not sure it’s critical to your central argument though, so suggest we don’t allow ourselves to be diverted here. I picked Poland and Finland because they are NATO countries. God you're sounding like a Tory now, magic money tree. Sigh. I was going to explain why I think Putin might go much further than anyone expects, cite the story of rise and fall of Saddam Hussein as evidence of how it could happen. But I see we are already well beyond what you are comfortable with. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 15, 2024 20:46:56 GMT
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are NATO members too Zany
I have no idea what your last paragraph means.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 16, 2024 6:25:40 GMT
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are NATO members too Zany I have no idea what your last paragraph means. So are Poland and Finland But fine, lets argue over which country is most likely. After all if I'm wrong on which country he attacks then my whole argument collapses. My last paragraph means it is clear you are never going to even understand how a country going to war increases spending on its weaponry by a colossal amount and therefore its pointless discussing the historic evidence that might lead us to believe Putin will do something which appears to be mad. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Apr 16, 2024 7:17:15 GMT
I'd suggest that much of this topic is a canard.
On the issue of any likelihood of Mr Putin lashing out at the West - That's highly unlikely to begin with : While he's clearly an irrational dictator with his back against the wall (and therefore unpredictable), his country is on its uppers, and he still knows that his military forces wouldn't make it ten metres into Western Europe before it's all over (and that the use of nukes guarantees the death of Russia..).
As for member countries not meeting their NATO commitments - anyone who fails to do so becomes a pariah state overnight,and no one's going to risk that. Even someone like Orban - who gives every indication of being Putin's biggest "supporter" to the adjacent West - knows that his country couldn't stand on its own if it were shunned by its neighbours, and that (if it were to happen in some fantasy scenario) Russia would hardly be in a position to fill the gap.
In short, my guess is that:
It ain't going to happen.
NATO would come together if it did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 16, 2024 8:10:58 GMT
The danger is a conflict holding down the attention of the west and then another conflict opening up ..and then another being opened opportunistically. All three antagonists now have a shared interest in pushing and the knowledge that we will accept worse terms.
This is why i think dicking Putin around for no reason was a huge blunder.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 16, 2024 8:26:27 GMT
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are NATO members too Zany I have no idea what your last paragraph means. So are Poland and Finland But fine, lets argue over which country is most likely. After all if I'm wrong on which country he attacks then my whole argument collapses. My last paragraph means it is clear you are never going to even understand how a country going to war increases spending on its weaponry by a colossal amount and therefore its pointless discussing the historic evidence that might lead us to believe Putin will do something which appears to be mad. So is Portugal Zany. Finland was an odd choice to illustrate your point. It would appear you weren’t aware that Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are NATO members. As I have said above a couple of times, don’t think this is a central point to your argument so suggest we leave it there. As for the rest of your argument. I think it has evolved to “Saddam Hussain went mad and acted irrationally (Kuwait?) so Putin will and if he does he might spend loads of money on the military (possibly selling oil wells to fund it) and invade Finland (even though the lesson of Ukraine is that a largely disengaged West has held him within 100 miles of his border and that unlike Ukraine Finland holds no material strategic advantage for Russia) and to prevent this imagined risk, we need to increase our war spending from 2% to 2.5% even though there is no evidence to suggest whether the necessary amount of spending to stop Russia’s hypothetical invasion of Finland is 1.5% or 2% or 2.5% or 5% or 25% but we might as well spend huge amounts because apparently there are no limits to or consequences of increased government spending. With respect Zany that doesn’t feel a well considered persuasive argument. If I have misunderstood your argument, perhaps you could lay it out clearly? I largely agree with Walter and Orac except in respect of “nukes”. There are almost no credible scenario in which they would be used (and it appears they don’t work anyway!!). Complete waste of money. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 16, 2024 17:16:58 GMT
I'd suggest that much of this topic is a canard. On the issue of any likelihood of Mr Putin lashing out at the West - That's highly unlikely to begin with : While he's clearly an irrational dictator with his back against the wall (and therefore unpredictable), his country is on its uppers, and he still knows that his military forces wouldn't make it ten metres into Western Europe before it's all over (and that the use of nukes guarantees the death of Russia..). As for member countries not meeting their NATO commitments - anyone who fails to do so becomes a pariah state overnight,and no one's going to risk that. Even someone like Orban - who gives every indication of being Putin's biggest "supporter" to the adjacent West - knows that his country couldn't stand on its own if it were shunned by its neighbours, and that (if it were to happen in some fantasy scenario) Russia would hardly be in a position to fill the gap. In short, my guess is that: It ain't going to happen. NATO would come together if it did. The trouble with mad dictators is that they are mad. That most Russians believe pretty much everything Putin tells them is very worrying. By example Saddam got it into his head that Iran was going to invade Iraq, there was no logical basis for this idea apart from enmity between the two. But he believed it and so his press told the public they were. As a result Saddam attacked Iran in a war that destroyed Iraq's economy and left over half a million dead from both sides. There was no chance Saddam was going to win that war and no one would have thought him mad enough to start such a war, but he did. That's the trouble with mad dictators, they are mad. As for nukes. I do not believe the west would ever resort to using them. So a longer ground war is much more likely. My position is that Putin going completely bonkers and attacking the West in some mad 'if we get in first fight' is unlikely, but its more likely than many think and its less likely if Putin sees us better prepared and all singing from the same hymn sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 16, 2024 17:21:50 GMT
So are Poland and Finland But fine, lets argue over which country is most likely. After all if I'm wrong on which country he attacks then my whole argument collapses. My last paragraph means it is clear you are never going to even understand how a country going to war increases spending on its weaponry by a colossal amount and therefore its pointless discussing the historic evidence that might lead us to believe Putin will do something which appears to be mad. I didn't check NATO members bordering Russia. I mentioned Finland because it doesn't immediately spring to mind, but has been attacked by Russia in past expansion attempts. Also because the Fins clearly recognised the risk and hurriedly joined NATO recently . But I'm sure you know best. You never got to hear that part of my argument because you were to busy scoring cheap shots to listen. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 16, 2024 19:17:55 GMT
With respect Zany, if you are going to comment on the perceived threat to NATO countries from Russia , you probably should know which countries in the general area of Russia are in NATO. As I have said repeatedly, I don’t think this is the central point of your argument however.
You have had three pages now to explain why you believe the UK should increase its war spending from 2% to 2.5%. I believe that argument has now evolved to be something to do with Saddam Hussein.
I have asked you which public services you would cut to fund but you seem to think there is a magic money tree from which we can fund unlimited spending. Perhaps pointing out that this is unrealistic is a “cheap debating point”
I have asked you why you refuse to learn the lesson of Ukraine that a very uncommitted West military support has nonetheless succeeded in stopping Russias far more committed army within 100 miles or so. It is not clear why you think then that Russia is capable of advancing far further against far more committed Western forces at current war spending levels. Perhaps that is another cheap debating point.
And I have asked you given that Western Europe spends five times as much on military spending as Russia now what evidence there is that we need to spend 2.5% to stop your imagined advance on Helsinki and why that figure rather than 1.5% or 2% or 3% or 20%. You have avoided answering that question too. Another cheap debating point too perhaps?
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 16, 2024 19:23:12 GMT
With respect Zany, if you are going to comment on the perceived threat to NATO countries from Russia , you probably should know which countries in the general area of Russia are in NATO. As I have said repeatedly, I don’t think this is the central point of your argument however. You have had three pages now to explain why you believe the UK should increase its war spending from 2% to 2.5%. I believe that argument has now evolved to be something to do with Saddam Hussein. I have asked you which public services you would cut to fund but you seem to think there is a magic money tree from which we can fund unlimited spending. Perhaps pointing out that this is unrealistic is a “cheap debating point” I have asked you why you refuse to learn the lesson of Ukraine that a very uncommitted West military support has nonetheless succeeded in stopping Russias far more committed army within 100 miles or so. It is not clear why you think then that Russia is capable of advancing far further against far more committed Western forces at current war spending levels. Perhaps that is another cheap debating point. And I have asked you given that Western Europe spends five times as much on military spending as Russia now what evidence there is that we need to spend 2.5% to stop your imagined advance on Helsinki and why that figure rather than 1.5% or 2% or 3% or 20%. You have avoided answering that question too. Another cheap debating point too perhaps? With respect Dappy it wasn't about which bloody country he might choose. End of conversation. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 16, 2024 19:40:06 GMT
No I know as I said many other times.
It is about all the other questions I asked you repeatedly each of which you avoided each time. The thread is there for all to read.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 16, 2024 20:10:17 GMT
No I know as I said many other times. It is about all the other questions I asked you repeatedly each of which you avoided each time. The thread is there for all to read. But you start everyone with stupid. So I assume that stupid is what's important to you. |
|
