Russia/Ukraine

GWU PNS said:

I am not sure at this point we are so interested in reassuring Ukraine. They have been given "lethal aid" and I think that's going to be about all they get from us other than a "praying hands" emoji. I think the 8500 or so troops pledged to NATO are to calm Romania, Poland, and Estonia. If there isn't a stronger consensus by NATO countries to act (as opposed to peering across the Atlantic and asking us to shovel their poop), then the Russian bear will keep raiding trash cans. And NATO, like Monty Python's brave Sir Robyn, will bravely run away.

Click to expand...

What a great post. Thank you. Your verbiage explaining this resonated with me. I sure hope you are correct. I think we should shovel our own poop for a while. Heaven knows there is a plethora of it.
“Run away, run away”

NJROTC-CC said:

Germany should be taking more of a lead in NATO and bearing the lion’s share of defending itself and Western Europe from the Ruskies. It is not doing enough.

I don’t fully understand how the USA has a vital interest in defending Europe anymore. I don’t think it’s an easy subject to fully comprehend. But I’m sure economics and trade is a big part of it. I don’t think it’s a matter of preventing the “Commies” from taking over the World any longer.

P.S. - Hey France! Can we get a little participation please!

Click to expand...

I don't see how there can be a discussion about who is (or is not) doing their part in NATO and then, in that same vein, say that the U.S. has no "vital interest in defending Europe anymore." That's what NATO is! It's an alliance that if one nation gets threatened then all nations recognize that as a threat.

We can discuss whether Russia represents any threat to our European allies or we can discuss whether NATO should even exist. Reasonable minds can disagree.

Memphis9489 said:

I don't see how there can be a discussion about who is (or is not) doing their part in NATO and then, in that same vein, say that the U.S. has no "vital interest in defending Europe anymore." That's what NATO is! It's an alliance that if one nation gets threatened then all nations recognize that as a threat.

We can discuss whether Russia represents any threat to our European allies or we can discuss whether NATO should even exist. Reasonable minds can disagree.

Click to expand...

I am likely in the camp of your second suggestion. The way NATO is currently running I personally am questioning its usefulness (Primarily to current US interests). While it had a mission when formed, times and borders and maps change. Maybe it should be revisited.

NJROTC-CC said:

What kind of message do you guess was conveyed to Russia regarding Ukraine by the US during those meetings?

Click to expand...

I have no idea what was said in that secret one on one meeting with no staff and no records kept.

But I sure hope NSA or someone in DoD knows.

If not the Congress and the military have a true need to know. And should put people under oath in a classified setting and find out and quickly what was said, what was offered, what was promised, and what the thanks if any were for.

My fear is that while we won't send troops for a ground war over Ukraine, we will send "advisors." That means my two special forces sons and their brethren would be at risk. My DH's parents lived in Odessa, Ukraine until making it to the US in the 59's after a stint in Dachau (his mother and brother), surviving the Battle of Stalingrad (his father) and making it through a displaced person's camp in Austria (the whole family.) They lived through the Bolsheviks and Lenin who stole their land and the insanity of Stalin who starved them. I would not appreciate the sad irony of my sons returning to battle the Russians in Ukraine.

GWU PNS said:

I think the 8500 or so troops pledged to NATO are to calm Romania, Poland, and Estonia. If there isn't a stronger consensus by NATO countries to act (as opposed to peering across the Atlantic and asking us to shovel their poop), then the Russian bear will keep raiding trash cans.

Click to expand...

NATO moves by consensus or not at all. There can not be a "split decision" on sending troops.
That said if NATO has consensus to act (support) then it becomes up to each member to decide how much they will send which could be a division or troops, a MEU-SOC and a CVBG or it could be a Rifle Platoon. By the way, the Europeans, led by France have long tried to create a European alliance with its own quick reaction force. The last time I heard about it there was a French/German "EuroBrigade" which had done some exercises. In general though, NATO has a much more well established command structure along with quick-reaction forces that then tie to larger follow-on forces.

Heatherg21 said:

I am likely in the camp of your second suggestion. The way NATO is currently running I personally am questioning its usefulness (Primarily to current US interests). While it had a mission when formed, times and borders and maps change. Maybe it should be revisited.

Click to expand...

“The way NATO is currently running”

This sounds as much a political statement from the last admin as opposed to an informed military related statement. I do realize that attacks on NATO have become more popular. And questioning its usefulness has hit a certain political cord in the US.

And maybe the doubters are correct.

But it was just about 20 years between the world wide slaughter of WW1 and the world wide slaughter of WW2.

Since the creation of NATO it’s been over 75 years since the last world wide slaughter of millions.

And please,it can’t be about who pays how much. Budget issues? Or how nice one country is to another. Or did someone insult our potus.

The absence of world wide wars must show something good being accomplished. That is in fact the number one US interest or should be.

Small Team Bacsi said:

...Since the creation of NATO it’s been over 75 years since the last world wide slaughter of millions...

Click to expand...

Not that Wikipedia is a great source, but there is a list of genocides (could probably be categorized as "democides") there:

Bangladesh was a real thing in 1971, as was Cambodia from '71-'75 and Rwanda in '94. If you go with the low estimates, they add up to 2,177,734 and 6.8 million on the high side.

OldRetSWO said:

NATO moves by consensus or not at all. There can not be a "split decision" on sending troops.
That said if NATO has consensus to act (support) then it becomes up to each member to decide how much they will send which could be a division or troops, a MEU-SOC and a CVBG or it could be a Rifle Platoon. By the way, the Europeans, led by France have long tried to create a European alliance with its own quick reaction force. The last time I heard about it there was a French/German "EuroBrigade" which had done some exercises. In general though, NATO has a much more well established command structure along with quick-reaction forces that then tie to larger follow-on forces.

Click to expand...

And therein lies the rub. There are 30 member NATO nations. In its original founding in 1949, there were only twelve. Trying to obtain consensus is nearly impossible. A Greek academic wove her thoughts into a lecture at a NATO course I took in Oberammergau. She said quite simply: “Countries and alliances don’t have friends, they have interests.” I hope that the State Department smart people working this dilemma have our interests in mind.

THParent said:

Not that Wikipedia is a great source, but there is a list of genocides (could probably be categorized as "democides") there:

List of genocides - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bangladesh was a real thing in 1971, as was Cambodia from '71-'75 and Rwanda in '94. If you go with the low estimates, they add up to 2,177,734 and 6.8 million on the high side.

Click to expand...

And we will no doubt have those throughout our history.

And maybe NATO is useless as far as what happens in those countries. I assume they are.

I was referring to the lack of world wide wars involving Russia China NATO etc countries many of which have nuke bombs.

I think we need less a budget or political look at NATO (easy as those attacks may be from a political standpoint ) and concentrate on the fact that our children are not dying in a full out many country world wars.

And they have not been doing so for over 75 years.

As a point of reference. NATO map.

Okay, I get the war thing, but NATO was formed for protection (granted, it was only for the member nations) but we as the United States decided to appoint ourselves the world's police and reach all over the place dragging NATO with us sometimes (I'm thinking Somalia here).

Bangladesh was a systematic rape and killing of women (because women were deemed to be public property) and murdering of intellectuals.
NATO was nowhere to be found there. Oops. Millions dead.

Cambodia's genocide was carried out by the Khmer Rouge and NATO had nothing to do with it.
We actually supported the Khmer Rouge, though. I guess we thought that since they were enemies of the Viet Cong, they must be our friends. Hundreds of thousands dead there. Oops.

When the Rwanda thing started, NATO pulled troops out of Rwanda. Oops. Millions dead.

There are quite a few times when I don't think that politicians should be calling the shots with these things, but then I start thinking that I don't want a bunch of George Pattons running around unchecked, either. It's a conundrum.

This is an interesting read, but probably a 2 cup of coffee amount of time needed: https://warontherocks.com/2022/01/putins-wager-in-russias-standoff-with-the-west/

An interesting movie for these interesting times.

WT Door said:

And therein lies the rub. There are 30 member NATO nations. In its original founding in 1949, there were only twelve. Trying to obtain consensus is nearly impossible. A Greek academic wove her thoughts into a lecture at a NATO course I took in Oberammergau. She said quite simply: “Countries and alliances don’t have friends, they have interests.” I hope that the State Department smart people working this dilemma have our interests in mind.

Click to expand...

Then there is Nato member Turkey who at this moment is an ally of Russia. My guess is not only would Turkey vote against any action towards Russia but would pass along info to the Russians (that's my opinion)

THParent said:

Not that Wikipedia is a great source, but there is a list of genocides (could probably be categorized as "democides") there:

List of genocides - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bangladesh was a real thing in 1971, as was Cambodia from '71-'75 and Rwanda in '94. If you go with the low estimates, they add up to 2,177,734 and 6.8 million on the high side.

Click to expand...

NATO is there to protect Europe, not the rest of the world

Small Team Bacsi said:

“The way NATO is currently running”

This sounds as much a political statement from the last admin as opposed to an informed military related statement. I do realize that attacks on NATO have become more popular. And questioning its usefulness has hit a certain political cord in the US.

And maybe the doubters are correct.

But it was just about 20 years between the world wide slaughter of WW1 and the world wide slaughter of WW2.

Since the creation of NATO it’s been over 75 years since the last world wide slaughter of millions.

And please,it can’t be about who pays how much. Budget issues? Or how nice one country is to another. Or did someone insult our potus.

The absence of world wide wars must show something good being accomplished. That is in fact the number one US interest or should be.

Click to expand...

I am slightly offended that my questioning a 75-year-old treaty and how it can be timely and relevant considering how vastly different the world is from its inception- would be considered political or simply as me parroting the prior administration. I try to think for myself.

But, I'm a grown-up so I will march on.

Plenty of conversations have been had regarding how to keep NATO intact, effective, and centered on its mission. I think it's healthy to be reflective and also look forward. It is a difficult thing to think that 30 different nations would all be willing to agree to anything 100% of the time. They have different needs, economies, enemies, friends, religions, etc.

I do think the countries that are in NATO should meet their financial obligation. It's in the Treaty, they agreed to do so. Yes, the US has for the most part shouldered the burden both monetarily and in troops contributed. Fine, we get a large benefit- keeping Europe peaceful is good for us. But the country in NATO that has one of the larger GDP's is Germany, which contributes far less than the Treaty asks. Why?? Maybe the same reason they won't get off the fence and take a stand regarding Russia and Ukraine.

I'm not saying NATO is bad or we should bail over cash. But I think that we as a nation need to constantly reassess the Treaty(s) we are in and whether or not our interests are being met. I am proud to be a citizen of a country that has come to the aid of so many. I also think we need to tend to things on the homefront. And I don't like saber-rattling. I have to always question if there are underlying motives to being quick to talk about arms and troops. Financial benefits to defense contractors being one.

cb7893 said:

There's rhetoric and there's reality. Two months ago there was a Federal auction of drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico. I think I read someplace that is was the largest auction of Federal leases in history.

U.S. holds historic oil and gas lease sale in Gulf of Mexico days after climate summit

The Biden administration is opening more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to auction for oil and gas drilling.

www.cnbc.com

You're CNBC article is from Jan 2021. Mine is from Nov 2021

I'll stop the hijack. I just can't abide the misinfo.

Click to expand...

You didnt even read your own article.

The president signed an executive order in January directing the Secretary of the Interior to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters and to begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development.

But in June, a federal judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction to block the administration’s suspension and ordered that plans continue for lease sales that were delayed for the Gulf and Alaska waters.

The U.S. Department of Justice is asking an appeals court to overturn the judge’s order.


In other words, the Biden administration was forced to do so by a federal Judge. That is like saying Ronald Reagan (randomly chose a Republican president ) supported Abortion because it was allowed under his presidency. No, the US Supreme Court made it legal and there was nothing Reagan could do about it. The federal judge forced Bidens hand so he doesn't get credit for opening up new oil fields.

Heather you did not originate the questioning of NATO in this way. The last admin did. And now it’s kind of Trump land foreign policy. That’s not political that is historical. And this whine about budget is at the top of the list of complaints..

Another way to gut NATO. Make it about euros not troops ready to fight and american leadership.

If we ever deploy troops to a shooting war in Europe and kids with parents on this forum are deploying to combat the very last thing we will be worrying about is cost or budget or who paid what.

Budget becomes the excuse to down grade NATO not the reason.

And we won’t be worrying about the cost of deploying the 1st and 2nd MarDiv to Europe just as quickly as we can either.

Small Team Bacsi said:

Heather you did not originate the questioning of NATO in this way. The last admin did. And now it’s kind of Trump land foreign policy. That’s not political that is historical. And this whine about budget is at the top of the list of complaints..

Another way to gut NATO. Make it about euros not troops ready to fight and american leadership.

If we ever deploy troops to a shooting war in Europe and kids with parents on this forum are deploying to combat the very last thing we will be worrying about is cost or budget or who paid what.

Budget becomes the excuse to down grade NATO not the reason.

And we won’t be worrying about the cost of deploying the 1st and 2nd MarDiv to Europe just as quickly as we can either.

Click to expand...

I guess we won't come to an agreement. And that's okay. For me, personally, it doesn't matter where the questioning of NATO came from if evaluating and revisiting our place in it is a good idea. I recall a history class I took where a very healthy debate regarding the effectiveness of NATO was discussed. That was in 1988. The last admin is not the only time it has been discussed. I certainly assume smart people all over the world have had questions about NATO since its inception, not just 4 years ago. Not everything has to be 'political' thank goodness. And I certainly don't want this thread getting shut down for the appearance of that.

I love this forum because we can have grown-up conversations without going down a rabbit hole. I brought up the budget because I simply (and maybe I am simple-minded) believe that for the most part, you put your money where it matters to you. At least I do.

At the core of my concern is expecting 30 very vastly different countries to agree on actions that could be critical to some, more than others.