|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 17, 2024 6:01:45 GMT
No idea what that is supposed to mean either Zany. Shame how this thread has seemingly finished. Have a good day.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 17, 2024 6:50:11 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. By "Dicking Putin around" Do you mean helping defend Ukraine? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2024 7:37:57 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. The lessons of history are indeed relevant. In 1933, Germany had a small army, no trained reserves and no air force. 6 years later it had the forces to conquer most of Europe. Germany too was not really seen as a threat until it became one by which time it was too late. And Hitler pretty much said in advance both in Mein Kampf and in numerous public speeches what he was going to do and most of the rest of the world either paid no attention or assumed it was just bombast and rabble rousing. Until he had the means to set about doing it. We should pay heed to Putin's words too. We cannot afford to assume that he does not really mean at least some of what he says. Russia in WW2 showed what it's people under arms can do, the hardships they can potentially endure. It was the people of the USSR which included of course many non-Russians - including Ukrainians of course - but with the Russians forming the majority of their forces, which ground down the Wehrmacht and made the defeat of Hitler possible. We should never underestimate what Russia and its people are capable of. And we should be prepared. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 17, 2024 8:03:01 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. The lessons of history are indeed relevant. In 1933, Germany had a small army, no trained reserves and no air force. 6 years later it had the forces to conquer most of Europe. Germany too was not really seen as a threat until it became one by which time it was too late. And Hitler pretty much said in advance both in Mein Kampf and in numerous public speeches what he was going to do and most of the rest of the world either paid no attention or assumed it was just bombast and rabble rousing. Until he had the means to set about doing it. We should pay heed to Putin's words too. We cannot afford to assume that he does not really mean at least some of what he says. Russia in WW2 showed what it's people under arms can do, the hardships they can potentially endure. It was the people of the USSR which included of course many non-Russians - including Ukrainians of course - but with the Russians forming the majority of their forces, which ground down the Wehrmacht and made the defeat of Hitler possible. We should never underestimate what Russia and its people are capable of. And we should be prepared. Yes precisely SRB. Thank you for rescuing the thread. Would you increase NATO spending by a small amount to send a message that we are ready? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 17, 2024 9:06:58 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. By "Dicking Putin around" Do you mean helping defend Ukraine? No. At that point we were significantly stuck in our karma. It would have taken a charismatic like Trump, or a genius, to extricate us from the disaster. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Apr 17, 2024 9:26:47 GMT
trump would have sat on his hands, vetoed any aid for Ukraine, and (while making "it's all bigly sad" noises) given Russia a free rein.
His "end the war in 24 hours plan", which consists of ending American assistance, is all the evidence needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 17, 2024 9:39:32 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. The lessons of history are indeed relevant. In 1933, Germany had a small army, no trained reserves and no air force. 6 years later it had the forces to conquer most of Europe. Germany too was not really seen as a threat until it became one by which time it was too late. And Hitler pretty much said in advance both in Mein Kampf and in numerous public speeches what he was going to do and most of the rest of the world either paid no attention or assumed it was just bombast and rabble rousing. Until he had the means to set about doing it. We should pay heed to Putin's words too. We cannot afford to assume that he does not really mean at least some of what he says. Russia in WW2 showed what it's people under arms can do, the hardships they can potentially endure. It was the people of the USSR which included of course many non-Russians - including Ukrainians of course - but with the Russians forming the majority of their forces, which ground down the Wehrmacht and made the defeat of Hitler possible. We should never underestimate what Russia and its people are capable of. And we should be prepared. You are absolutely right SRB that we should always seek to learn the lessons of history. Nor or course should we blindly assume that history will necessarily repeat itself - remember too the lessons of the Maginot Line. In the case of Russia of course, we have very recent history to guide us. That history tells us that , having arguably goaded Russia into a disastrous conflict, the West has sent a very clear message to Russia by showing that even a very restricted Western military effort (no men no aircraft none of the more sophisticated weapons) the West can succeed in holding a far more committed Russian army (suffering significant losses) within 100 miles of its border. The idea that it would be capable of travelling hundreds or thousands of miles has been exposed as pure fantasy. The message is surely clear. The current level of “defence” spending is clearly adequate, in fact excessive. Would you not agree? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Apr 17, 2024 9:55:58 GMT
trump would have sat on his hands, vetoed any aid for Ukraine, and (while making "it's all bigly sad" noises) given Russia a free rein. His "end the war in 24 hours plan", which consists of ending American assistance, is all the evidence needed. There are always options. One might be to call Putin's bluff by considering his 'security concerns' and offering to trade them. Of course, with complete simpletons and psychopaths in the wheelhouse, this sort of thing isn't likely to happen. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2024 12:18:29 GMT
The lessons of history are indeed relevant. In 1933, Germany had a small army, no trained reserves and no air force. 6 years later it had the forces to conquer most of Europe. Germany too was not really seen as a threat until it became one by which time it was too late. And Hitler pretty much said in advance both in Mein Kampf and in numerous public speeches what he was going to do and most of the rest of the world either paid no attention or assumed it was just bombast and rabble rousing. Until he had the means to set about doing it. We should pay heed to Putin's words too. We cannot afford to assume that he does not really mean at least some of what he says. Russia in WW2 showed what it's people under arms can do, the hardships they can potentially endure. It was the people of the USSR which included of course many non-Russians - including Ukrainians of course - but with the Russians forming the majority of their forces, which ground down the Wehrmacht and made the defeat of Hitler possible. We should never underestimate what Russia and its people are capable of. And we should be prepared. Yes precisely SRB. Thank you for rescuing the thread. Would you increase NATO spending by a small amount to send a message that we are ready? I think we should have as a target increasing spending upon the armed forces and weaponry to 3% of GDP by 2030, and encourage all other European NATO members to do the same. This would send a real message of intent. We should also signal a willingness to go even further and faster if circumstances warrant it. Someone like Putin will not be stopped by a collection of good arguments. All he understands is strength, and whether or not any possible response is enough to stop him from doing what he wants, or have too high a cost for him.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2024 12:29:13 GMT
The lessons of history are indeed relevant. In 1933, Germany had a small army, no trained reserves and no air force. 6 years later it had the forces to conquer most of Europe. Germany too was not really seen as a threat until it became one by which time it was too late. And Hitler pretty much said in advance both in Mein Kampf and in numerous public speeches what he was going to do and most of the rest of the world either paid no attention or assumed it was just bombast and rabble rousing. Until he had the means to set about doing it. We should pay heed to Putin's words too. We cannot afford to assume that he does not really mean at least some of what he says. Russia in WW2 showed what it's people under arms can do, the hardships they can potentially endure. It was the people of the USSR which included of course many non-Russians - including Ukrainians of course - but with the Russians forming the majority of their forces, which ground down the Wehrmacht and made the defeat of Hitler possible. We should never underestimate what Russia and its people are capable of. And we should be prepared. You are absolutely right SRB that we should always seek to learn the lessons of history. Nor or course should we blindly assume that history will necessarily repeat itself - remember too the lessons of the Maginot Line. In the case of Russia of course, we have very recent history to guide us. That history tells us that , having arguably goaded Russia into a disastrous conflict, the West has sent a very clear message to Russia by showing that even a very restricted Western military effort (no men no aircraft none of the more sophisticated weapons) the West can succeed in holding a far more committed Russian army (suffering significant losses) within 100 miles of its border. The idea that it would be capable of travelling hundreds or thousands of miles has been exposed as pure fantasy. The message is surely clear. The current level of “defence” spending is clearly adequate, in fact excessive. Would you not agree?No I would not, for the reasons set out in my earlier post. After Russia's disastrous performance in the 1939-40 Winter War against Finland everyone under-estimated Russia. Including of course Hitler. And yes history may not repeat itself but we need to learn from our historical mistakes. I'd rather we had the strength to make Putin leaving us alone a total no brainer, in case in a bigger war it's people prove to be far more effective, as happened 80 years ago. We cannot rule that out and need to be ready for it. By being ready for it we make war far less likely. And you say we provoked Russia, but he is the one who has been actively aggressive against Ukraine for basically refusing to be a Russian puppet state. The Ukrainians have the same moral right to self determination as we do. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 17, 2024 12:35:26 GMT
Yes precisely SRB. Thank you for rescuing the thread. Would you increase NATO spending by a small amount to send a message that we are ready? I think we should have as a target increasing spending upon the armed forces and weaponry to 3% of GDP by 2030, and encourage all other European NATO members to do the same. This would send a real message of intent. We should also signal a willingness to go even further and faster if circumstances warrant it. Someone like Putin will not be stopped by a collection of good arguments. All he understands is strength, and whether or not any possible response is enough to stop him from doing what he wants, or have too high a cost for him.. I agree. The messages being sent at the moment are ones of timidity, with never enough support being given to Ukraine. I also think the Western direct involvement in helping Israel against Iran could easily be read by Putin as fear of Russia, We dare stand by our allies against Iran, but not against Putin. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2024 12:56:05 GMT
I think we should have as a target increasing spending upon the armed forces and weaponry to 3% of GDP by 2030, and encourage all other European NATO members to do the same. This would send a real message of intent. We should also signal a willingness to go even further and faster if circumstances warrant it. Someone like Putin will not be stopped by a collection of good arguments. All he understands is strength, and whether or not any possible response is enough to stop him from doing what he wants, or have too high a cost for him.. I agree. The messages being sent at the moment are ones of timidity, with never enough support being given to Ukraine. I also think the Western direct involvement in helping Israel against Iran could easily be read by Putin as fear of Russia, We dare stand by our allies against Iran, but not against Putin. Our blanket support for Israel no matter what has long been exceptional and not the norm. The desire to figure out why is the inevitable breeding ground for conspiracy theories, some perhaps having grains of truth and others maybe less so. And this attracts all sorts of accusations of antisemitism in our political discourse. The very fact that we offer such unique blanket support to a state with a far right government behaving like a rogue state is a mystery in need of an explanation. But if you dare to suggest anything without supporting evidence even as a possible consideration, you will be shouted down as an antisemite. But I will say it. The West - especially the USA - is giving billions every year in military and economic aid to Israel and some of that is then used to buy political support, with a number of MPs in this country accepting donations from Israel, and most US Congressman also dependent on Israeli financial donations. Ukraine does not have any MPs or congressmen in their pockets. I think that explains the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 17, 2024 12:57:52 GMT
You seem to want to go back to history eighty years ago and totally ignore the realities today. However well Russia fought 80 years ago, the reality is that right now, the Russian army has failed to advance more than 100 miles or so against limited Western
Military involvement - including lack of men, aircraft and largely tanks. It’s a reality that you and Zany seem keen to ignore. Could you explain clearly why you feel you need to increase spending further given that reality and given the reality that Western Europe already outspends Russia by at least 5 to 1.
Remember this is real world money you wish to spend which will need to be diverted from public services so needs to be justified expenditure.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 17, 2024 13:05:21 GMT
You seem to want to go back to history eighty years ago and totally ignore the realities today. However well Russia fought 80 years ago, the reality is that right now, the Russian army has failed to advance more than 100 miles or so against limited Western Military involvement - including lack of men, aircraft and largely tanks. It’s a reality that you and Zany seem keen to ignore. Could you explain clearly why you feel you need to increase spending further given that reality and given the reality that Western Europe already outspends Russia by at least 5 to 1. Remember this is real world money you wish to spend which will need to be diverted from public services so needs to be justified expenditure. No. You are completely unable to understand that they could up military production a thousand fold if they went to war. This despite having it explained with examples to you by myself and SRB. In WW2 the UK increased defence spending from 2.5% to 275% of GDP. Rinse repeat. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Apr 17, 2024 17:24:14 GMT
Zany. Russia couldn’t possibly increase its military spend a thousand times over and the UK has never spend 275% of GDP on defence. That is a logical impossibility.
It could though ramp up military spending somewhat although taking it much higher than the existing 6% wouldn’t be easy in practise. Let’s though assume it did seek to increase its military spending to say 30% of its GDP in order to invade Western Europe. That would take its military spending up to roughly the same level as Western Europe’s currently. It would take a significant time to get there and provoke considerable concern amongst other powers (US and China but also India and the like.) who would likely seek to constrain it. It is extremely unlikely to happen.
But even in the event that Russia did seek to increase its spending to 30% and US, China and India stood by despite the catastrophic effect full scale war in Europe would have on their economies, the time for us to respond would be when Russia started that process.
The facts are that Russia, reasonably fully engaged, spending around 6% of its GDP on war is unable to get more than 100 miles from its borders against a lightly engaged West spending 2%.
The idea of diverting money from schools and hospitals to spend even more on defence now based on your wildly improbable hypothesis is frankly madness.
|
|
