"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Image 22-12-2024 at 3.26 am.jpeg
 
SplitRz said:
Then, given the current state of the world, it SHOULD be, surely?

NATO is an organisation which relies on mutual defence and the willingness of each and every member to step-up and make the ultimate test of that promise, if required: All out war in which your own citizens lay down blood and treasure to defend a fellow nation. (And if taken to the ultimate, Mutually Assured Destruction by default). That's what NATO members sign up to.

2.5% is not an unreasonable national commitment in the post Ukraine world, because its measured on GPD - poorer or smaller countries are making payments proportionate to the size and health of their economy. Otherwise we're in he surreal world in which nation A can choose to spend 0.9% of its GDP on the military and the other 1.6% that its neighbour B is paying, on state subsidised 'nice things'. Nation A can buy votes off of its citizens by having state funded swanky events and infrastructure, feeling cosy and shielded by its more Spartan neighbour who's had to make civic sacrifices up to afford a halfway credible military. I can't see Nation B feeling thats either fair or proportionate to a mutual agreement and the stakes it entails.

In the normal post Cold War world, the nations that spent less of the peace dividend were those who still had significant diplomatic and inclination to military involvement in the wider world - or those who weren't so quick to unlearn the lessons of history, usually because they shared a border with a nation who's spots may not have changed for real

NATO became for many of the more isolationist countries, a convenient cost saving exercise, enabling them to run their defences down on the understanding that the collective force of NATO was just about credible enough to provide the bare essentials. With the frankly lazy assumption of automatic backup of Uncle Sam in the unlikely event anything really bad happened.

Putin has changed all of that. And the incoming POTUS is going to underline it. And tbh, whilst I think blunt hints are an incredibly unwise piece of brinksmanship at this time, I do actually see where that individual is coming from and why it sits well with his voters. Europe, collectively *has not* been paying its way, militarily. I don't think anyone can deny that, can they?

If NATO *is* for the collective defence of all involved, and all involved are therefore expected to honour that, why are some paying disproportionately far more by population and wealth, than others? When so many nations are under social strain as it is, and when so many others feel a proper existential threat, how can that be sustainable without at least an agreed minimum commitment?
Click to expand...
Regardless of what people may feel re % contributions and the like, the ultimate question has to be "what is the alternative?" If it is to let some countries fend for themselves then we are hading for a world that Putin and his puppets will rule. One of the things about a collective defence situation is that it also means there is a collective threat , i.e. if countries start to act like individuals and refuse to support others than all will fall eventually.
 
defence-blog.com

Russian drone quality declines amid mass production

Ukrainian military experts have observed a noticeable decline in the quality of Russian weaponry deployed during ongoing attacks against Ukraine. Despite Russia’s efforts to adapt its arsenal to the demands of modern warfare, including the mass production of Iranian-designed Shahed drones, the...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
 
MiTasol said:
I must admit that getting a truly accurate indication of each countries military support for Ukraine is a real minefield.

A lot of countries, including the US and Aus, are donating end of life materials to save themselves disposal costs. How are these items valued?

At purchase cost? Probably in most cases.

At written down cost? That is if it has 5% of life left is it costed at 5% of purchase cost.

At "real" value? As in it will cost us $X to dispose of so we show it on our budget as a $X payment from Ukraine because that is how much they saved us

Then there is the countries military spending.

IF a country buys 100 item x gives them to Ukraine is this shown as:
  • Only aid to Ukraine?
  • Aid to Ukraine and also part of NATO contribution?
  • Aid to Ukraine and also part of the countries own military expenditure?
  • Other double dipping?

I have no doubt that all combinations, and more, are at play given that politicians are inherently dishonest and love to make themselves look good when ever possible and at the least expense they can connive.
Click to expand...
Those are really good points. I'd think that any assets should be carried 'on the books' at their depreciated value. I have no idea as to how state-owned assets are valued. Interesting.....
 
Warspite63 said:
Those are really good points. I'd think that any assets should be carried 'on the books' at their depreciated value. I have no idea as to how state-owned assets are valued. Interesting.....
Click to expand...

I agree but politicians being politicians I bet that nearly every item is costed at replacement cost because that sounds far better in a press release if they say that "we supplied Ukraine 25million dollars work of X" when in fact they are shipping material that is coming up on, or past, its official life and where an honest statement would have been "we just saved our taxpayers 1 million dollars by giving Ukraine some weapons we needed to strip down, disable and scrap".
 
GTX said:
Regardless of what people may feel re % contributions and the like, the ultimate question has to be "what is the alternative?" If it is to let some countries fend for themselves then we are hading for a world that Putin and his puppets will rule. One of the things about a collective defence situation is that it also means there is a collective threat , i.e. if countries start to act like individuals and refuse to support others than all will fall eventually.
Click to expand...
But the stance of the incoming POTUS means NATO is now *already* at that watershed.

Not only that, how reliable would NATO allies actually prove in wartime? Would an Erdogan Turkey or Hungary or very soon, Romania, actually step up to the mark? Thanks to a www populated by naked misinformation and the bone-headed conformation bias of nationalism, the right wing populated by Putin fanboys is on the rise globally.

How convinced are most Europeans that a post new POTUS American administration would unequivocally step in to defend a Europe that spends so little of its GPD on collective defence?

Russia has proven itself to be a paper tiger- but Europe has placed itself in a position of military weakness at the cost of US investment. I'm not fan of the US direction of travel in just about any of its current directions, but TBH, I can't blame you-know-who for questioning why his nation is expected to be Europe's automatic guarantor.

Why should there be such wide disparity in military preparedness by GDP within NATO, and how can it be morally excused, if ALL members are supposed to be prepared to sacrifice their economies and the lives of their best and brightest equally in wartime?

And that plain logic aside, how is deterrence supposed to work, if some parties aren't playing their collective part by showing unity and commitment to the cause by actually investing in the meat and bones of the concept? That's a serious and reasonable but inconvenient question that too many people want to duck.

We should be in a period of serious rearmament, not apathy and complacent 'business and assumption as normal'. I can't see how that can be any less obvious. The parallels to the 1930s seem clear enough to me.
 
The parallels to the 1930's is remarkable, to be honest.

Had Britain and France (and even Poland) intervened on Czechslovakia's behalf, Germany would have been ill-equipped to respond.

The testing of the waters by Hitler gave two-fold results.
The first was to see how the European powers would respond, which was essentially strongly worded condemnation and finger waging.
The other, was buying time to build up and modernize his military.

It worked well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

A
The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
2K
Luft.4
L
M
All V-22's Grounded
Replies
2
Views
1K
GTX
GTX
M
All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
Replies
19
Views
2K
MIflyer
M
M
The Wrath of KAAN?
Replies
3
Views
866
Snautzer01
Snautzer01
M
The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
Replies
2
Views
512
Thumpalumpacus
Thumpalumpacus
Back