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 →

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 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 -  (15 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.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 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.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Only if you think all sources are equally credible and trustworthy. Not sure why you're beating this obviously dead horse - as I said, I trust what my sources are saying and it's a far cry from what you're claiming. So hold to your opinion, no one is asking you to change it, but quit trying to change mine because you won't.

[–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

It's ridiculous to assume that everything online cannot be used. What sources are you using? No one is saying they're trustworthy or equally credible. What you can do is check those sources against other sources. You're not doing that. You're just doing a Trumpist "fake news" claim with no evidence or logic, in order to shut down any argument you don't like, in favor of your claims, which are entirely without evidence or logic.

[–]penelopepnortneyBecome ungovernable 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What an ass you are.

[–]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.