Macron's shambolic interview, cowers to Putin's warning

submitted by RandomCollection from youtube.com

sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

If wishes were horses, all men would ride.

You state the obvious when you talk about NATO unity against Russia, that's been clear for the past 2 decades and more and it's precisely the reason we're on the brink of WWIII - we made that, by turning what was supposed to be a military alliance for preserving peace into one that instigates instability and insecurity throughout the region beginning with the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Which is pretty ballsy when you think about it since we're an ocean away and won't be directly impacted by what happens in Europe's backyard.

But you're clearly delusional when you say NATO will destroy the Russian military - with what? They don't have the manpower or the materiel, as the French military studies revealed in the Marianne piece spell out. NATO could not accomplish this without the US, and the US has clearly said they will not put troops on the ground. Yes, this could change but the US military hasn't been able to meet its recruitment goals so it would require conscription in an election year. Which ain't gonna happen.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

Seems you're not familiar with NATO's capability and mission. Moreover, NATO countries will continue supporting Ukraine. It's easy to understand. And DO NOT change my words. I write, "NATO will destroy Russia's military, if necessary."

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Well, do explain Mr. NATO Expert, exactly how "NATO will destroy Russia's military, if necessary". I'm not a military expert myself and can only assume - but correct me if I'm wrong! - that "capability" at a minimum entails manpower, weapons, ISR capabilities and logistics.

You seem to be privy to information I've not come across from credible sources (this rules out Western media) about the capacity for weapons production in the US and Europe and the number of combat troops of the NATO member states willing to go head-to-head with Russia. Recent statements indicate that this doesn't include the US, UK, Germany, Hungary or Slovakia and although the Polish Foreign Minister said yes, the Polish Prime Minister said absolutely not. The NATO member with the strongest military after the US is Turkey and I seriously doubt they'd contemplate going to war with Russia.

I await your further elucidation.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

You can easily search for that information, if it's not already obvious. There is an extensive cold war history to this. Read up. If you want weapons and personnel comparisons, see:

https://bestdiplomats.org/nato-vs-russia-military-comparison/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Don't know anything about the first two, like who are the people who make it up, who funds them, etc. because that's relevant and what you would be pointing out if I was throwing Russian sources out here. As for Wikipedia - LOL. But all that aside, plopping down some links and saying "you can easily search for that information" is pretty lame; you don't seem able to articulate your argument in your own words, your previous talking points notwithstanding. So I gotta tell ya, I'm having a difficult time taking you at all seriously.

One of my primary sources for military analysis is Col. Douglas Macgregor, retired US Army and a military historian. Part 3 of his 3-part discussion with Michael Vlahos, who has taught at the Military War College since the 80s, has been summarized here and includes links to summaries to Part 1 and Part 2. These discussions are from a year or so ago so they don't address Macron's proposal, but they do address what Gen. Petreus was talking up at the time. What follows is a small taste of what's at the link:

Obviously, we're not thinking intelligently about it or we would not even consider something as utterly crazy as the "coalition of the willing" - unless the coalition is close to a million men and consists of a very different composition from the forces we have today.

In Part 2 they discuss the strategic failures of NATO. This part is especially relevant to the current discussion:

Americans need to understand that there is no command structure with all the assets (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance or C4ISR), that is European, it's all American. Anything that happens militarily in Europe is of necessity American, because if you take that backbone away, no one can replace it. US dominance was so great that European militaries began to slough off the things that made them credible as militaries.

He gives what many, including me, consider a clear-eyed assessment of current US military power and it's not a pretty picture. The danger is that those who want to use our military all over the world have this unrealistic vision locked into our military strength in the mid-20th century which has no bearing to today's reality. I can think of few things stupider than underestimating your enemy while overestimating yourself, but that seems to be what we're doing, with our European and other allies tagging along behind like the compliant vassals they are.

[–]sdl5 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ammo:

Oleksandra Mamchii A faux diplomat with a degree, Ukr native, "youth activist", and basically a very young mouthpiece for the globalist crowd

Writes heavily for the site referenced, every single bit of it the CIA/NEOCON narrative.

Statista, claiming to be current stats*-

Key points: -From very early in 2023 -Much is estimated -NATO values include entire US military And -Key point is even then Russia was basically equal to all of NATO in ground forces and equipment.

Care to guess what has happened to much NATO equipment in the last year?

How about Ru production of mil?

Or Ru volunteer returning forces? Vs alllll of the West suffering mass cashing out and terrible recruiting figures while also strpngly pushing woke as mil priority and shoving out the trad pool of fighting forces.

I cannot imagine why we are laughing at this yahoo 💁😹💃💯🤦

*Survey time period 2023

Supplementary notes *Information taken from this SIPRI press release (as of January 2022). The values for the USA, France and the United Kingdom were added together for the information for NATO.

Status of all other information: beginning of 2023; Data retrieved on March 24, 2023.

The figures for NATO were calculated using the figures for the individual member states. Information may be partially estimated according to the source

Comparison of the military capabilities of NATO and Russia 2023 Published by Statista Research Department, Mar 30, 2023 As of 2023, NATO had approximately 3.36 million active military personnel compared with 1.33 million active military personnel in the Russian military. The collective military capabilities of the 30 countries that make up NATO outnumber Russia in terms of aircraft, at 20,633 to 4,182, and in naval power, with 2,151 military ships, to 598. Russia's ground combat vehicle capacity is more competitive, however, with 12,566 main battle tanks, to 12,408. The combined nuclear arsenal of the United States, United Kingdom, and France amounted to 5,943 nuclear warheads, compared with Russia's 5,977.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When I'm looking at military numbers I kind of expect to find they've been compiled by, you know, military analysts. The first source provided from our new friend clearly is not a military analyst and I can't tell who compiled the second bit of data because they're not identified.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

while also strpngly pushing woke as mil priority and shoving out the trad pool of fighting forces.

This is the utterly insane part to me. Did no one realize this would be a bad idea while we're fighting a proxy war in Ukraine and lighting fires in multiple other places that boots on the ground may ultimately have to put out?

The people in charge have been sniffing their own effluvium for too long, it's addled their brains.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

OK - thanks for the counter argument - but none of this explains how Russia would beat an adversary that has five times the military capacity. Other countries would have to help Russia, and for that to potentially happen, and those countries would have to forego their trade relationships with NATO countries. Not going to happen, over a relatively minor part of territory in Ukraine. Everyone expects Russia and NATO countries to play the long game, to string out the offensive timeline in Ukraine. Various military industrial complexes benefit from this, while China gets cheap food, and India gets cheap oil. Everyone, except the Ukrainians are getting a piece of the war machine pie. It makes no sense to escalate tensions. If Russia were to do that, they would be isolated and defeated, unless China and/or India stupidly helped Russia. The other problem is nuclear bomb and missile responses, which would be devastating for everyone involved, and incredibly stupid.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

but none of this explains how Russia would beat an adversary that has five times the military capacity.

Because I think your premise is bunk. But we'll see who's right in the event such a head-on confrontation comes to pass.

those countries would have to forego their trade relationships with NATO countries. Not going to happen

I don't agree that Russia would have to rely on other countries, and I certainly disagree that in the event it were necessary other countries would not come to their aid. Russia has more friends throughout the world than the West does, they are benefiting now from relationships established during the Soviet era throughout the global south. And in case you hadn't noticed, many countries in the "Rest of the World" are lining up to join BRICS; and while it's true all its members - including Russia and China - haven't closed the door on trading with the West, they are also setting up a system where they can engage in trade according to each member's own national interests without having to tolerate Western bullies telling them what they can and cannot do.

It makes no sense to escalate tensions. If Russia were to do that

They're not planning to, but they've said they will achieve the objectives they set out at the beginning of the war. They've also said they will not attack NATO countries UNLESS those countries attack them first. As for nukes, I think the greatest danger is from the US where you have utter morons talking about "limited nuclear war" being an option.

The non-Western world is watching what the West has tried to do to Russia because they realize it can and in some cases has already been done to them - the seizing of Russia's reserves, the attempt to destroy the Russian economy with sanctions, the 2014 coup that led to a civil war on its borders.

Sanctions are considered economic warfare and a violation of international law but as everyone knows, the West routinely violates international law in favor of the more pliable "rules-based order" - as one pundit put it, we make the rules, you follow our orders. So no, I don't think Russia will be isolated; I think they'd get lots of support if they ended up taking on the dreaded beast of Western hegemony. Actually, they've already done this by drawing and defending clear lines in the sand about their own survival and security interests.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

You can't argue with the numbers and with the development of NATO over the decades, and its purpose. Moreover, you seem to think Russia has 5x the power than it does.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

It's a matter of which sources you trust and we obviously trust different ones.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It's easy to corroborate military numbers merely by searching for them. There isn't a massive difference between resources for information like that. Anyone who has a problem with one resource can bring up other resources as evidence. In the present case the numbers are verifiable. This isn't a matter of opinion.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

You can't argue with the numbers and with the development of NATO over the decades, and its purpose. The NATO countries are also wealthier, can arm themselves better, and everyone knows their capability. Moreover, you seem to think Russia has 5x the power than it does. It's like you refuse to look at the facts.

[–]sdl5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Your own source guts your argument-

Did you not actually read and note the sources and dates?

Even then Ru was at parity, perhaps better on the ground.

And THAT data was a year ago, long before Ru spooling up mil production OR the mass blowing up of NATO ground equipment.

And of course there is this key point: Since your premise includes ALL of US mil involved it thus forces a nuclear strike war. Which even the rabid neocons are hesitant to trigger

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Your own source guts your argument-

Nothing wrong with my sources. Nor can you prove that there's anything wrong with them.

Did you not actually read and note the sources and dates?

Not an issue, obviously.

Even then Ru was at parity, perhaps better on the ground.

LOL - in which fucking universe?

And THAT data was a year ago, long before Ru spooling up mil production OR the mass blowing up of NATO ground equipment.

Also ridiculous. All countries have had similar production and replacement schedules. Russia's also lost quite a bit in the Ukraine war.

And of course there is this key point: Since your premise includes ALL of US mil involved it thus forces a nuclear strike war. Which even the rabid neocons are hesitant to trigger

Not an issue. Perhaps re-read my statement. And if you want to discuss nuclear war, everyone knows all sides would lose, but Russia would be especially at a loss. No one wants that.

[–]sdl5 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Whew.

Incredible.

I hope you are getting paid to be writing such blatant bullshit and denial of reality- even as multiple US aligned nations and peeps corroborate exactly what we are all saying AND your own source details in the Notes you clearly never even glanced at.

But you do you, slay queen, yas girl you go! and whatever else you need to feel you won here 💁