"The chill in relations with Russia would be lasting because Putin's survival in power "is linked to permanent confrontation with the West," the diplomat said."
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKCN0PG18E20150706?irpc=9
Quick, dissolve NATO because Putin doesn't like it! ::)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/world/europe/britain-pledges-to-hit-nato-military-spending-target.html
US Army announced yesterday it's downsizing again by 40,000.
Quote from: OJsDad on July 08, 2015, 06:42:05 PM
US Army announced yesterday it's downsizing again by 40,000.
Will 40,000 really make a huge difference to capability?
Man for man, the US probably has more budget spent than anywhere else in the world. With the investment it gets, it is easily - as a whole - the most effective conventional force in the world, even if it is not the biggest.
Quote from: Boggit on July 11, 2015, 08:01:14 PM
Quote from: OJsDad on July 08, 2015, 06:42:05 PM
US Army announced yesterday it's downsizing again by 40,000.
Will 40,000 really make a huge difference to capability?
The problem with the current Sequestration-mandated budget cuts isn't the numbers per se, but rather where the cuts are implemented. In this case, it's the wrong 40,000 and it will have a negative impact.
Quote from: Boggit on July 11, 2015, 08:01:14 PMMan for man, the US probably has more budget spent than anywhere else in the world.
We spend a TON of it on R&D and then sell the outcomes to everyone else. A lot of that budget doesn't directly impact the foxhole strength of the units.
Quote from: JasonPratt on July 07, 2015, 02:10:33 PM
Quick, dissolve NATO because Putin doesn't like it! ::)
The sad reality is that some politicians in Germany and Italy do think like that seriously.
Many former Warsaw Pact nations are now in NATO.
This includes Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.
It also includes some of the Baltic States.
The possibility of a land war in Europe with Putin in the Baltics or in the Balkans is not far fetched at all.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Quote from: airboy on July 14, 2015, 01:19:44 PM
Many former Warsaw Pact nations are now in NATO.
This includes Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.
It also includes some of the Baltic States.
The possibility of a land war in Europe with Putin in the Baltics or in the Balkans is not far fetched at all.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Actually the possibility of land war would happen only if Putin miscalculates NATO response.
Russian policy is always very cautious,and they act only is they have an assured chance of success, with little comeback. They would move on the Baltic states only if they were sure NATO will not act.
If Ukraine responded more forcefully last year against the first appearance of the Russian "Green Men" in Crimea, they would have been pulled out quickly by Russia, and the whole mess would have been avoided with Ukraine holding on to Crimea.
AS it happens Russia is not pressing their aggression more active because they believe their own propaganda that the US was involved in Ukraine, and they are not sure what US will do if more pressure is applied on Ukraine. At the moment they are trying to hold on to the gains. If some extra acreage fall their way they will take it, but not expect all out grab for Ukraine, unless thing change to give them assurance of easy win.
Two top US generals who are next candidates for the top jobs at the Pentagon testified in Congress that Russia represents now the greatest and even existential treat, before China, Iran, North Korea, with ISIS distant fifth.
Quote from: pawelj on July 15, 2015, 10:35:44 AM
Quote from: airboy on July 14, 2015, 01:19:44 PM
Many former Warsaw Pact nations are now in NATO.
This includes Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.
It also includes some of the Baltic States.
The possibility of a land war in Europe with Putin in the Baltics or in the Balkans is not far fetched at all.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO
Actually the possibility of land war would happen only if Putin miscalculates NATO response.
Russian policy is always very cautious,and they act only is they have an assured chance of success, with little comeback. They would move on the Baltic states only if they were sure NATO will not act.
If Ukraine responded more forcefully last year against the first appearance of the Russian "Green Men" in Crimea, they would have been pulled out quickly by Russia, and the whole mess would have been avoided with Ukraine holding on to Crimea.
AS it happens Russia is not pressing their aggression more active because they believe their own propaganda that the US was involved in Ukraine, and they are not sure what US will do if more pressure is applied on Ukraine. At the moment they are trying to hold on to the gains. If some extra acreage fall their way they will take it, but not expect all out grab for Ukraine, unless thing change to give them assurance of easy win.
Ukraine would not have been able to stop Russia taking Crimea.
Quote from: pawelj on July 15, 2015, 10:39:09 AM
Two top US generals who are next candidates for the top jobs at the Pentagon testified in Congress that Russia represents now the greatest and even existential treat, before China, Iran, North Korea, with ISIS distant fifth.
I don't see ISIS as distant 5th. They are a return to old fashioned war that destroys all remains of the previous culture. It destroys lives. Most modern conflicts have been fairly light on the civilian population compared to the rape, killing, culture of isis.
as an existential threat, ISIS is pretty low - they are not a threat to the existence of the US. They're a thread to plenty of other things, but they're not invading / conquering / destroying / dismantling the US. They're just not.
Quote from: bayonetbrant on July 15, 2015, 01:27:44 PM
as an existential threat, ISIS is pretty low - they are not a threat to the existence of the US. They're a thread to plenty of other things, but they're not invading / conquering / destroying / dismantling the US. They're just not.
There has been no news reports of them trying to cross the water for attacks? I thought they had massive amounts of funding?
But they aren't an existential threat. Whatever game they talk, and whatever they might be in the future if they are allowed to continue, they don't currently pose a threat to wiping out our way of life (or worse). Even if acting against them triggered a wider conflict, the basis wouldn't likely spread beyond the Middle East.
Of course, they're much more of an existential threat to nearer nations.
As if the Norks or Iran are more likely to invade the US... uh, no.
Quote from: Mr. Bigglesworth on July 15, 2015, 04:27:01 PM
As if the Norks or Iran are more likely to invade the US... uh, no.
no, but their multiple-nuke capability poses a much greater danger than ISIS smashing old statues with a sledgehammer.
True.
They are still not a threat, the high resource maniac with no responsibility is more likely to try something. I think isis has many well funded maniacs.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/17/world/africa/isis-affiliate-sinai-province-claims-ship-attack.html?referrer=
Today's example of the isis problem. They can buy lots of hardware, then ship it around. Right now they are focused in the sand pit. If they consolidate their position this kind of strike can happen anywhere.
A war involving North Korea or Iran could also spin quickly out of control on a global scale (partly but not entirely due to the nuke issues), which is an existential threat to the survival of the United States per se, even if not nearly as much of a threat as from the Cold War Soviet Union.
Which Putin also doesn't approach (despite his wish-fulfillment delusions otherwise), but he's closer to that level than they are, and currently ISIS is way below their ability to provide a similar existential threat. They're currently more like a number of African warlords running rampant in their area.
Except they want to spread; so they're working on becoming an existential threat. Doesn't mean they're there yet. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be acting now to keep them from getting there.