Oh my God, your ignorance is astounding. Spoiler alert, Russia has been supplying energy to Western Europe for a LONG time now. Back when they were the Soviet Union they were supplying natural gas from Sibera via 6 foot pipelines. And Germany is fully dependent on Russia for energy? Are you insane? Germany uses many sources of energy to run their country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany https://www.npr.org/2018/07/11/6281...ticizes-germany-for-pipeline-deal-with-russia It was OUR war, silly. WE wanted THEM to help US. WE were attacked. Of course WE did the heavy lifting. It was OUR war. We CALLED OUR ALLIES. Let me know if you need more caps to comprehend things like facts and history, that isn't even that old. Sigh...it's sourced in the OP's post. And here. https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallm...percentage-of-gdp-infographic-2/#44b972a74c47 You do realize that 3.5% of our GDP is hundreds of billions of dollars right? You do understand math, not even math, arithmetic, and how percentages of totals work, right? You know who has the highest % of GDP spend on the military? Saudi Arabia. Do you know who has the highest total dollar spend? The US. Why the disparity? You were taught this in 6th grade. Did you attend 6th grade? https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/trump-putin-russia-timeline/ Wait no more. I'm sure no proof will change your mind. See above about how gas is less than 20% of Germany's means of producing electricity. Russia provides roughly 66% of 20% of their energy needs. I know you struggle with these things so let me make it easy for you, you're wrong.
The United States not only has the biggest economy but was instrumental in NATO formation, we also have by far the biggest military and industry around it (which Europeans buy). The U.S. does invest heavily in NATO and the nations more dependent on it should certainly invest more as well, but finances aside the use of the alliance is unquestionable. Germany is a freee nation with energy needs and I see this more as Russia becoming more dependent on Germany...it goes both ways.
Harp away, if it makes you feel better. Meanwhile, it seems you fixate. Not a very good quality in a scientist. Factual observation? So far all I've seen from you is superficial observation and cherry picking a few numbers with tenuous links to the underlying issue. Facebooky charts? Now that is hillarious. I see that the International INsitution for STrategic STudies is a facebooky source by you. Wow, even more evidence of what a diligent scientist you are.
I was stationed in W. Germany and stood ready to face the Soviets at Fulda Gap should they make a move, and let me tell you, after nearly 40 years a lot of information is out now about the threat level that we faced. Equipment and vehicle capabilities, level of training, I'll tell you we would have stomped a mud hole in their back. Not saying it would have been easy, but yeah, we would have cleaned their clocks... There were plenty plans that didn't involve nukes...
If you talked less you would be able to do the math I asked. Also, fixation on detail is exactly what makes a good scientist. Who taught you that, your math teacher?
You fund nato to the tune of $250 Mill a year for both civilian and military headquarter elements. OUt of a total budget of abound 1.2 billion. For that $250 MILLION a year American gets a multinational unified military capability with a budget of $240 BILLION. An enormously cheap force multiplier for America. America gets: Article 5, european stability, bulwark against Russia, diplomatic alignment, national and economic security, stable markets, and gigantic international influence to exert American Power. Other than that, not much I guess.
Exactly- This is why saying that they were going to use the "Libya" model for negotiations with North Korea was so preposterously stupid. Gadaffi agreed to give up his WMD and nuclear program for security --- he then was attacked. When Bush called Iran/Iraq/NK the "axis of evil" and then proceeded to make war on Iraq for no good reason - what do we think the others thought ? "Us next - we better get those nukes quick" Most do not understand the nuclear issue. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was roughly 12,000 tons TNT equivalent. That was a "fission bomb" splitting the atom. A thermonuclear (hydrogen) bomb is "fusion" fusing the atom. In the hay days of the cold war Russia was making 20 megaton bombs = roughly 1500 times the power of the Hiroshima firecracker. Russia still has a few but do not make them anymore - because they are just too big and it is much more efficient and does more damage to use 4 x 5 megatons or, the more common 1 missiles with 10 MIRV's roughly .75 to 2 megatons each. 1 megaton is 75 times the power of Hiroshima ... quite enough to take out a large city. 10 of these on one ballistic missile. One Sub 16 missiles (10 MIRV each) = 160 bombs - these are smaller - only 5-7 times Hiroshima. Wipe 160 US cities of population 500,000 or more off the map and let me know what you are left with. That is one sub and these are slightly bigger firecrackers. When the ballistics start flying .. thousands of them - its just over. Using data from Castle bravo - 7000 square miles contaminated with nuclear fallout. 450 strikes would contaminate the entire continental US with fallout. Realistically half that number is enough to turn the US into a red radioactive "no go zone" on the map. The blast will kill many but it is the fallout and chaos after the fact that will kill the most. No power, no drinking water, no food, no communications, no gas to warm your house if it happens to be winter .. and so on. Hundreds of millions of people fleeing the cities ... to where ? to what ? One can survive for a fairly long time without food - without water you die in less than a week. France/Britain are nuclear superpowers. Each has more than enough nukes to blast Russia back into the stone age. One having more than the other makes little difference ... it is like having the conversation "I can destroy the world 6 times" OHH OHHH .. well I can destroy it 7. This is why the US and Russia reduced their stockpiles to something like 20% of what they once were at the height of the cold war. There is simply no point.
At the end of the Cold War, most Americans were expecting that we would be bringing home our troops from Europe. Before 1993 the plan was that America would slowly disengage from NATO. If western Europe wanted to keep NATO, that was their decision but NATO would need a new mission that doesn't involve America. The mission of NATO was to kill commies. With the end of the Cold War, NATO no longer had a mission. So why would NATO expand in size after it no longer had a mission ??? Who was behind violating the promises that were made between President G.H. Bush and President Gorbachev at the end of the Cold War ??? I know and know why.
Well, the deterrent to another rise of a Russian attenpt at empiricism is a valid mission. And 30 years later, wee see its importance again.
you do tend to weasel around whatever point you have fixated on. The subject isn't an example of your fixation on detail. Its a fixation on the wrong friggin metric to support your conclusion. I'll take a pass on taking advice from you on what makes a good scientist. Empirical evidence being what it is and all.
You are moving the goalposts - North Korea has zero to do with a France/Russia conflict. 1) North Korea is not a nuclear superpower like France/Britain. 2) North Korea does not have the ability to wipe the US off the map with nukes (and it is doubtful they even have the ballistic missile capability to get one nuke to the continental US - never mind hundreds) 3) in an exchange between nuclear superpowers such as France and Russia - conventional weapons are not the deciding factor. 4) Your boots on the ground/ win the conflict is puzzling at best. What is there to WIN - after a full scale nuclear war ? Whats the point of robbery when nothing is worth taking ? There is no "winning" a full scale nuclear war - that was the whole point of the MAD doctrine - Mutually Assured Destruction. See post 182.
NATO still has a mission. Apparently you can't be bothered actually learning what the hell its all about.
America under the Clinton administration and certain members of NATO broke the promise that NATO would not expand in membership and never would NATO troops would ever be deployed on the soil of any nation who shared a border with the Russian Federation. If you were Russia what would have been your response if the agreements and promises made were broken ?
The metric I asked for was plastered hours after I asked you for it on CNN and CBS. Your own leftist flagships even had to cede the exact math I asked for. Inform yourself. The only one weasling here was you...on simple division.
Okay, but that was never anything binding. Not by law, not by treaty, not by anything. For Putin to use this as justification for invading Georgia, Ukraine, and Crimea is smoke and mirrors, as it has nothing to do with any of that.
Was, you claimed this was the case now. They can do mission but not optimum, so without an urgent cause why would you use these for a mission? You do realise you have to make some case why this is so bad? So show where its require to spend 2% and with are the mechanism to enforce this. bye bye You do realise an election is different from policy in another country. No there wont as the US doesnt do this now, this is purely fictional a trump invention. Again the only one to actually use NATO for whats its designed is the US .
That's true. I suppose since 1993 America's word and a handshake doesn't mean jack **** anymore. How old were you during the 1950's, 60's, 70's and 80's ? When I was 12 years old one of the most exciting times in my life. Not being an adult and not really understanding what was going on and watching a dozens of Nike Zeus ballistic missiles popping out of the ground pointing towards the sky less than two miles from my home and all of the military troop trains headed towards the east during the Cuban Missile Crises were exciting times for a 12 year old. The last time a bugle was used to sound the "Call to Arms" in the Marine Corps was on October 16, 1962 and in 48 hours Camp Pendleton was a ghost town with the entire 1st Mar Div on ships headed for the Panama Canal. The Vietnam War was a proxy war, just one battle fought during the Cold War. The Kremlin poured money into every anti draft and anti war movement in America and Europe, more money than they spent on supporting the Viet Cong. That's why the KGB referred to the Counterculture movement who would become the "New Left" as "useful idiots." By 1972 the "New Left" was gaining control of the Democratic party and would basically surrender and no longer wanted to fight the Cold War and would knowingly or unknowingly supported the Soviet Union. When Reagan won the Cold War liberals weren't happy campers that their side lost and they blamed, Reagan, conservatives, neocons and RUSSIANS. Promises were made on what would become of NATO and those promises were broken by the Clinton administration. Enter President Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright who is a hyphenated-American who was born in Czechoslovakia who has a really big chip on her shoulder and hates all Russians who convinced President Clinton to restart the Cold War and expand the size of NATO. First mission was, bring in Poland as a member of NATO then other former Warsaw Pact nations. There was support by the American, British, German and French military industries. One of the requirements to be a member of NATO is you have to be armed with weapons made in the USA, UK, Germany or France. All former Warsaw Pact nations who joined NATO would have to replace all of their AK-47's for M-16's, H&K or FN rifles. All of their Soviet tanks, artillery pieces, etc. would have to be replaced with weapons made in either the USA, UK, Germany or France. All of those Mig fighters would have to be replaced with NATO aircraft like the F-16. There was hundreds of billions of dollars to be made by expanding NATO.
Stiffing? This is a political point for trumps voters, this isnt a real issue . Luck of course, everyone else was so stupid ot blow each other and their industry up.
Huh? Who did they promise -- Russia? Circumstances have a way of changing plans based on the behaviors of one's enemies, or haven't you notice this particularly blatant historical theme. Are you seriously trying to justify Putin/Russia belligerence against America, the EU, and NATO?
OMG! fixated on a metric that has been public and acknowledged by everyone. Reported on CNN and CBS oh my!. Personally I like to go to the source. You know NATO. Graph 8 will give you all the math you need, because apparently you aren't capable of doing your own since you keep insisting I provide it for you. https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2018_03/20180315_180315-pr2018-16-en.pdf
We are dealing with the years from 1993 to 1999. Putin wasn't even on the radar screen until 1996. It was the Clinton's administration policies that helped to bring Vladimir Putin into power. If President G.H. Bush (41) were have been reelected back in 1992, Vladimir Putin would likely be driving a garbage truck in St. Petersburg today.
Yes I am familiar with the bogus bullshit that trump et.al. are trying to coat reality with. Hahahahaha! Accident of geography coupled with technological limitations in war fighting. Yep it was because all those other countries stupidly got destroyed fighting the war on their own turf. Unless of course your post was a POE example, in which case we violently agree.
