If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly

[RandomGuy]

If Russian tanks and troops rolled into the Baltics tomorrow, outgunned and outnumbered NATO forces would be overrun in under three days. That’s the sobering conclusion of war games carried out by a think tank with American military officers and civilian officials.

“The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members,” said a report by the RAND Corp., which led the war gaming research.

In numerous tabletop war games played over several months between 2014-2015, Russian forces were knocking on the doors of the Estonian capital of Tallinn or the Latvian capital of Riga within 36 to 60 hours. U.S. and Baltic troops — and American airpower — proved unable to halt the advance of mechanized Russian units and suffered heavy casualties, the report said.

The study argues that NATO has been caught napping by a resurgent and unpredictable Russia, which has begun to boost defense spending after having seized the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine and intervened in support of pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine. In the event of a potential Russian incursion in the Baltics, the United States and its allies lack sufficient troop numbers, or tanks and armored vehicles, to slow the advance of Russian armor, said the report by RAND’s David Shlapak and Michael Johnson.

“Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, all bad,” it said.

The United States and its NATO allies could try to mount a bloody counter-attack that could trigger a dramatic escalation by Russia, as Moscow would possibly see the allied action as a direct strategic threat to its homeland. A second option would be to take a page out of the old Cold War playbook, and threaten massive retaliation, including the use of nuclear weapons. A third option would be to concede at least a temporary defeat, rendering NATO toothless, and embark on a new Cold War with Moscow, the report said.

...

A force of about seven brigades in the area, including three heavy armored brigades, and backed up by airpower and artillery, would be enough “to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states,” it said. The additional forces would cost an estimated $2.7 billion a year to maintain.
...


Rest at:
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-started-war-baltics-nato-123950130.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Three heavy armored brigades is about a US Armored division (generally about 4 total brigades, with supporting divisional assets).
Think:
1st Cav or so with some attached units, or roughly 50,000 troops. (my own mental calculation, based on a US division being about 30,000)

Not a minor commitment.

[Wild Cobra]

If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly


I can believe that. Especially with Obama and his likes running the free world.

Now I'll read the first post.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't bother going to the link, but from my knowledge, I agree with what you quoted.

[boutons_deux]

stupid fucking dick measuring

More U.S. troops deploying to Europe in 2017

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/02/more-troops-deploying-europe-2017/79693680/

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.businessinsider.com/only-us-and-estonia-meeting-nato-budget-goal-2015-2


Only the US and Estonia are meeting NATO's defense budget goals

Fourteen NATO countries have so far announced their defense budgets for 2015. Of those fourteen, only the US and Estonia have passed the 2% of GDP threshold that every NATO nation pledged to have as their goal for military expenditure.
According to a new study from the European Leadership Network (ELN) (http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/the-wales-pledge-revisited-a-preliminary-analysis-of-2015-budget-decisions-in-nato-member-states_2472.html), six nations will increase their budgets in 2015 while six military budgets will shrink. France's budget will remain flat. And the UK and Germany, two of the largest military powers in Europe, will be among those seeing their budgets shrink.


Canada's defense budget has not been formally announced but it too is likely to fall, according to the ELN report. Canada has opposed target defense budget goals for NATO and will likely not abide by a September 2014 pledge by NATO countries to increase their defense spending.
This stagnation in military expenditure from the larger military powers in NATO — the UK, France, Germany, and Canada — has led to several smaller NATO states to increase their funding. Not coincidentally, some of them would be frontline states (http://www.businessinsider.com/military-expert-russian-snap-military-drills-could-turn-into-assaults-on-baltic-capitals-2015-2) in a future military conflict between Russia and the NATO alliance.
Poland has increased its budget in 2015 and has pledged to raise it again in 2016 to the 2% threshold. Likewise, Latvia is undertaking a gradual increase and aims at reaching the target goal by 2020. Lithuania, which is so concerned over potential Russian aggression that it will bring back military conscription (http://www.businessinsider.com/lithuania-bringing-back-conscription-2015-2) starting in 2016, increased its defense budget from 0.78% to 1.11%.


The ELN report notes that Norway increased its defense budget by 3.5% to 1.6% of GDP over concerns of falling defense spending in western Europe and the idea that it may need to be increasingly self-reliant. Romania, too, increased funding over concerns of Russian intervention (http://www.businessinsider.com/brandee-leon-why-a-russian-backed-transnistria-matters-2015-2) in neighboring Moldova.
Although NATO touts its goal of having its member states meet a 2% threshold of GDP for military spending, there are legitimate concerns that European nations could not realistically meet the goal without significant reforms of their military structure.
Ian Anthony, the director of the European Security Program at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, wrote for Carnegie Europe (http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=59173) that for some countries, meeting the target threshold would only lead to significant waste and mismanagement of funds.
"Germany would have to increase its military budget from roughly €37 billion (http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/milex_database) ($42 billion) to over €74 billion (http://data.worldbank.org/country/germany) ($84 billion) to meet the target," Anthony writes.
"If the German parliament authorized that scale of increase — in itself highly implausible — the country’s armed forces could not effectively absorb the money. The result of pumping that level of spending into current structures would probably be inefficiency and waste, rather than an increase in useful capability."
Lisa Aronsson, a visiting fellow at the Atlantic Council, echoed Anthony's views at Carnegie Europe.
"Planners across NATO understand that the way the alliance spends money (http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_67655.htm) is more problematic than the amount spent. The results are duplication, poor readiness, and a lack of deployability," Aronsson writes. "NATO has tried to shift the emphasis away from the 2 percent target and onto more useful tools to address these problems."
The question of NATO defense funding has become increasingly urgent thanks to heightenined tensions throughout Europe over potential Russian aggression. Russia has been aiding anti-government separatists in eastern Ukraine and has launched a series of military flights (http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-bombers-intercepted-near-british-airspace-2015-2) across Europe that have forced NATO members to scramble their own aircraft.

[Wild Cobra]

stupid fucking dick measuring

More U.S. troops deploying to Europe in 2017

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/02/more-troops-deploying-europe-2017/79693680/

OMG...

Does Obama really want to start Cold War II?

[Winehole23]

How about Europe doing more of the heavy lifting and picking up the tab for a change?

[boutons_deux]

OMG...

Does Obama really want to start Cold War II?

NATO/EU and the US Ambassador to Ukraine already did that by overthrowing Ukraine's Soviet protege.

[Wild Cobra]

How about Europe doing more of the heavy lifting and picking up the tab for a change?

How about we simply do nothing except abide by NATO contract should something real happens.

Stay out of the "cold war" aspect of it.

Anyone know why Obomba has an itchy trigger finger? I can't help but think, with the thousands of cruise missiles he ordered launched, that he might start WWIII.

[boutons_deux]

How about we simply do nothing except abide by NATO contract should something real happens.

Stay out of the "cold war" aspect of it.

Anyone know why Obomba has an itchy trigger finger? I can't help but think, with the thousands of cruise missiles he ordered launched, that he might start WWIII.

if it were a Repug beefing up US's Euro presence, you'd be jizzing everywhere.

[clambake]

if it were a Repug beefing up US's Euro presence, you'd be jizzing everywhere.

did you forget wc's expertise in battle?

[hater]

Old news tbh. But what a hilariously stupid statement:

"if Russia starts a war in the Balkans..." :lmao

So if Russia is defending themselves due to NATO moving troops and weapons next door to them. They are "starting a war" :lmao

So I am guessing US didn't defend themselves but started shit during the Cuban crisis right??? :lmao

[velik_m]

How about Europe doing more of the heavy lifting and picking up the tab for a change?

Pick up a tab for what?

[hater]

Pick up a tab for what?

American imperialism I guess. Contribute Europe! :lmao

[ChumpDumper]

OMG...

Does Obama really want to start Cold War II?That was Bush. He and his neocon administration were so obsessed with Russia they ignored al Qaeda - and you know what happened then.

You blamed Clinton.

[Wild Cobra]

if it were a Repug beefing up US's Euro presence, you'd be jizzing everywhere.

Is that your wet dream?

Please keep me out of it.

[Wild Cobra]

That was Bush. He and his neocon administration were so obsessed with Russia they ignored al Qaeda - and you know what happened then.

You blamed Clinton.

Did I blame Clinton, or point out his hypocrisy?

Remind me please.

After 911, how many democrats signed on to going in?

How many similar things have made it essential to interfere with the middle east since 911?

One more thing.

Have you read this yet:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Jhn5iaHPL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[clambake]

Did I blame Clinton, or point out his hypocrisy?

Remind me please.

After 911, how many democrats signed on to going in?

How many similar things have made it essential to interfere with the middle east since 911?

One more thing.

Have you read this yet:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Jhn5iaHPL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

what was your favorite part? the part where they lied about wmd's or the part where he wants to apologize to powell?

[Wild Cobra]

what was your favorite part? the part where they lied about wmd's or the part where he wants to apologize to powell?

LOL...

Wouldn't you like to know.

And from your description, it's obvious you didn't read it.

Maybe you should give me a page number and the first three words of a paragraph.

[clambake]

does he say they were wrong?

does he say he wants to apologize?

[clambake]

you can go ahead and admit that they lied.

no way could we think any less about you.

[Wild Cobra]

does he say they were wrong?

does he say he wants to apologize?

LOL...

can't get the context right. I suspect you are reading it from a blog that lies.

See page 98, the second paragraph.

[clambake]

hmmmm....guess i got it all wrong.

why does he want to apologize to powell?

[Wild Cobra]

hmmmm....guess i got it all wrong.

why does he want to apologize to powell?

Is your problem with context ignorance, stupidity, or intellectual deceit?

[ChumpDumper]

Did I blame Clinton, or point out his hypocrisy?

Remind me please.

After 911, how many democrats signed on to going in?

How many similar things have made it essential to interfere with the middle east since 911?

One more thing.

Have you read this yet:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Jhn5iaHPL._SX329_BO1,204,203,200_.jpgAfter 9/11?

I'm talking about before.

I've read Against All Enemies, The Looming Tower and At the Center of the Storm. If you can tell me anything new that book provides about the period those cover, go ahead and post it.

[clambake]

give it up chump.

he's too much of a disgrace to answer honestly.

[Wild Cobra]

After 9/11?

I'm talking about before.

I've read Against All Enemies, The Looming Tower and At the Center of the Storm. If you can tell me anything new that book provides about the period those cover, go ahead and post it.

Before 911, Clinton bombed the bejesus out of Iraq.

What for?

And his 1998 resolution...

Bush (41) left Iraq, and Clinton wouldn't leave them alone. Then, you all want to blame Cheney and Bush...

My God...

[clambake]

are you and avante related?

[Wild Cobra]

are you and avante related?

Do you think anyone more intelligent that yourself is related?

why don't you just come clean, and tell us what blog you got your misinformation from.

Was it Common Dreams?

Is anyone supporting your inaccurate contention that Morell wanted to apologize?

[ChumpDumper]

Before 911, Clinton bombed the bejesus out of Iraq.

What for?

And his 1998 resolution...

Bush (41) left Iraq, and Clinton wouldn't leave them alone. Then, you all want to blame Cheney and Bush...

My God...Holy shit. 20 years on and you're still conflating Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

What the hell is your problem?

[clambake]

his problem is that he's a fucking disgrace.

[Wild Cobra]

Holy shit. 20 years on and you're still conflating Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

What the hell is your problem?

I don't have a problem, but we all know you do.

You can't help but to badger other people here.

When will you stop acting out?

[clambake]

Is anyone supporting your inaccurate contention that Morell wanted to apologize?

just some guy named michael morell.

[Wild Cobra]

his problem is that he's a fucking disgrace.

Who?

Morell?

Cheney?

You really need to read that whole section to understand. Paraphrasing an activist blogger just amplifies your stupidity.

[clambake]

i don't follow any blogs, flaglot

[ChumpDumper]

I don't have a problem, but we all know you do.

You can't help but to badger other people here.

When will you stop acting out?You're the one who brought up Desert Fox when I was talking about al Qaeda.

[Wild Cobra]

just some guy named michael morell.

Then give us the quote.

Problem is, the actual quote on page 98 proves your context wrong.

Again, repeating activists bloggers amplifies your stupidity.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/e2d5ffdf-12f5-4604-94d4-18bb1871491f_zpsrcdzldfd.jpg

[clambake]

i don't know of any blogs, flaglot

[Wild Cobra]

You're the one who brought up Desert Fox when I was talking about al Qaeda.

I was speaking of what transpired before Desert Fox when I said 1998. It's called The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Desert Fox wasn't his only bombing. There were others, or did you forget?

[Wild Cobra]

i don't know of any blogs, flaglot

Then how did you get the incorrect context?

Are you being intellectually dishonest, ignorant, or stupid?

[clambake]

i heard him say it at the nixon library when he was promoting this book.

flaglot

[Wild Cobra]

i heard him say it at the nixon library when he was promoting this book.

flaglot
I never heard that context in any of the videos I watched of him.

Maybe you need to look up the definition "context?"

[clambake]

he said he wanted to apologize to powell and every american, to my face, flaglot

[ChumpDumper]

I was speaking of what transpired before Desert Fox when I said 1998. It's called The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. Desert Fox wasn't his only bombing. There were others, or did you forget?Sorry, you're only talking about Iraq here.
Before 911, Clinton bombed the bejesus out of Iraq.

What for?

And his 1998 resolution...

Bush (41) left Iraq, and Clinton wouldn't leave them alone. Then, you all want to blame Cheney and Bush...

My God...

[Wild Cobra]

he said he wanted to apologize to powell and every american, to my face, flaglot
LOL...

He doesn't say he want to apologize in the book. We were speaking of the book, when you asked what part I liked. Now you are arguing about something not in the book.

LOL...

You really are stupid.

LOL...

[clambake]

can't argue with the guy that "knows where all the nukes are" lol

[clambake]

why don't you use your stalker skills and ask him!

[Wild Cobra]

can't argue with the guy that "knows where all the nukes are" lol

You can't argue with anyone when you can't keep your argument strait.

You ask what part I like in the book... "or the part where he wants to apologize to powell? "

Thing is, there is no part where he says he wants to apologize.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Then you make this shit up that you talked with him.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Why should anyone believe a damn thing you say?

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

[Wild Cobra]

why don't you use your stalker skills and ask him!

Tangent means you know you lost.

Loser...

Loser...

Loser...

[clambake]

he spoke to many people directly. he was very approachable. not one time was he offended by the questions people asked.


loser? won't argue that with the expert.

[clambake]

still happy that she can live again.

[Wild Cobra]

he spoke to many people directly. he was very approachable. not one time was he offended by the questions people asked.


loser? won't argue that with the expert.

You didn't look up the definition of "context" yet, did you?

You really expose your stupidity over, and over, and over.

your smart move would be to admit you are wrong, and talking out your ass.

Even if he said that, it is a different "context" than what is in the book.

[clambake]

he said he wanted to apologize to powell and to every american.


why does this hurt so bad?

[Wild Cobra]

he said he wanted to apologize to powell and to every american.


why does this hurt so bad?
Past tense?

Now that I know the "context" you are using, I'm not saying he didn't say that.

However, I still don't believe anything you say for a moment.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

It's obvious you still didn't look up the definition of "context!"

My God, are you a level 99 fool?

[clambake]

you don't believe what i say?



you still believe those U.S. soldiers were killed by karma?
you still stalk defenseless women?
you still think she's happy you're gone?
you still know where all the nukes are?



chuckle

[hater]

Lol Russia has US checkmated in many levels. Not even Rubio or Cruz will be able to do 2 shits about it :lmao

Look up Russian Oceanic System 6. An undetectable robotic mini sub than can carry a payload of 100 megatons. Thus creating a tsunami of 500 meters in height and would radiate and kill anything with 1000 miles off the coast

:lol Rubio doing anything about it :lol

[ChumpDumper]

lol Russia got cucked by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia

[hater]

An US got cucked by Iran :lmao

IRAN

[ChumpDumper]

An US got cucked by Iran :lmao

IRANHow?

Oil is $35 a barrel.

In that respect, Iran is about to cuck Russia too.

Iran

[hater]

IRAN :lol

[ChumpDumper]

How?

Use your words.

[Winehole23]

Pick up a tab for what?
Defense of Europe.

[TDMVPDPOY]

well russia is inside ukrain now...u dont see nato or eu doing shit even if ukrain was a member or not of eu/nato...

fkn clowns cant even solve immigrant refugees problem, what makes u think they can solve a war against russia

[z0sa]

Considering the proximity of the countries to Russia, one wonders how they will ever truly be free of threat from the giant.

[hater]

Defense of Europe.

:lmao defense fom whom???

Russia is not invading Europe Einstein :lol

[Winehole23]

The burden of European defense against threats perceived or real should fall more heavily on European countries. I'm agnostic as to whether Russia will/would invade.

[boutons_deux]

The burden of European defense against threats perceived or real should fall more heavily on European countries. I'm agnostic as to whether Russia will/would invade.

agnostic as in don't care, or don't know

All the Putin fellators here on Spurstalk would love the results if Putin invaded the Baltics, and why not Finland?

[Winehole23]

don't know. do you?

[velik_m]

The burden of European defense against threats perceived or real should fall more heavily on European countries. I'm agnostic as to whether Russia will/would invade.

Threats perceived by whome? That's the whole point, just because US goverment is for some reason affraid of Putin, doesn't mean everyone else is. I can tell you no one in Slovenia regards Russia as a serious threat. I mean if you would push me really hard to name countries as threats, Italy, Hungary and Croatia would come up way higher. I'd rather see them cut military spending than increase it.

[boutons_deux]

don't know. do you?

I care if Russia would invade the Baltics, ALL of Ukraine, but while I don't know, Putin's Macho Man dick measuring activities plays well with Russian patriots.

[boutons_deux]

"US goverment is for some reason affraid of Putin"

who says? evidence?

[hater]

The burden of European defense against threats perceived or real should fall more heavily on European countries. I'm agnostic as to whether Russia will/would invade.

You are ignoring the fact that NATOs imperialistic strategies involve heavily in arming eastern Europe in order to gain influence and thus power in the region.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Threats perceived by whome? That's the whole point, just because US goverment is for some reason affraid of Putin, doesn't mean everyone else is. I can tell you no one in Slovenia regards Russia as a serious threat. I mean if you would push me really hard to name countries as threats, Italy, Hungary and Croatia would come up way higher. I'd rather see them cut military spending than increase it.

You are on the adriatic with Austria, Hungary, Ukraine, the old Czech republic, etc between you and them. Turkey defends from the south. It's very easy for you to say. At the same time your country voted to join NATO which has one purpose: to defend from Russian expansion which belies your claim based on personal anecdote.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are ignoring the fact that NATOs imperialistic strategies involve heavily in arming eastern Europe in order to gain influence and thus power in the region.

:lol more Russian TV news rhetoric from shillbot.

Crimea was criminal expansion which meets the standard of imperial expansion. The proxy war they are playing in Ukraine the same. What has NATO done?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If Russian tanks and troops rolled into the Baltics tomorrow, outgunned and outnumbered NATO forces would be overrun in under three days. That’s the sobering conclusion of war games carried out by a think tank with American military officers and civilian officials.

“The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members,” said a report by the RAND Corp., which led the war gaming research.

In numerous tabletop war games played over several months between 2014-2015, Russian forces were knocking on the doors of the Estonian capital of Tallinn or the Latvian capital of Riga within 36 to 60 hours. U.S. and Baltic troops — and American airpower — proved unable to halt the advance of mechanized Russian units and suffered heavy casualties, the report said.

The study argues that NATO has been caught napping by a resurgent and unpredictable Russia, which has begun to boost defense spending after having seized the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine and intervened in support of pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine. In the event of a potential Russian incursion in the Baltics, the United States and its allies lack sufficient troop numbers, or tanks and armored vehicles, to slow the advance of Russian armor, said the report by RAND’s David Shlapak and Michael Johnson.

“Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, all bad,” it said.

The United States and its NATO allies could try to mount a bloody counter-attack that could trigger a dramatic escalation by Russia, as Moscow would possibly see the allied action as a direct strategic threat to its homeland. A second option would be to take a page out of the old Cold War playbook, and threaten massive retaliation, including the use of nuclear weapons. A third option would be to concede at least a temporary defeat, rendering NATO toothless, and embark on a new Cold War with Moscow, the report said.

...

A force of about seven brigades in the area, including three heavy armored brigades, and backed up by airpower and artillery, would be enough “to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states,” it said. The additional forces would cost an estimated $2.7 billion a year to maintain.
...


Rest at:
http://news.yahoo.com/russia-started-war-baltics-nato-123950130.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Three heavy armored brigades is about a US Armored division (generally about 4 total brigades, with supporting divisional assets).
Think:
1st Cav or so with some attached units, or roughly 50,000 troops. (my own mental calculation, based on a US division being about 30,000)

Not a minor commitment.

It is impossible to currently tell what that war game scenario was based on. Russia currently has a lot of forces deployed in Ukraine and Syria. I'm guessing they are predicting if Russia brought all their force to bear on the NW. It is close to Moscow and St Petersburgh so I could see it but that would also leave their southern flank exposed.

[hater]

:lol more Russian TV news rhetoric from shillbot.

Crimea was criminal expansion which meets the standard of imperial expansion. The proxy war they are playing in Ukraine the same. What has NATO done?

:lol more retardation as from NATO lemming

Ukraines president being couped by neonazi criminals is equivalent to Panamas president being couped by a drug cartel. You don't think USA would protect their interests in the Panama Canal?? Crimea is pretty much Russia's Panama Canal

[SnakeBoy]

NATO became a sham when the 2nd largest economy in NATO and 4th largest economy in the world decided not to have a functional military.


Germany’s army is so under-equipped that it used broomsticks instead of machine guns
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/19/germanys-army-is-so-under-equipped-that-it-used-broomsticks-instead-of-machine-guns/

[RandomGuy]

It is impossible to currently tell what that war game scenario was based on. Russia currently has a lot of forces deployed in Ukraine and Syria. I'm guessing they are predicting if Russia brought all their force to bear on the NW. It is close to Moscow and St Petersburgh so I could see it but that would also leave their southern flank exposed.

They outline it a bit more in the article.

NATO just doesn't have the Force that the Rooskies could bring to bear. We have known this for a long time, this just quantifies it, and puts an exclamation point on it.

[RandomGuy]

NATO became a sham when the 2nd largest economy in NATO and 4th largest economy in the world decided not to have a functional military.

http://www.janes.com/article/52745/germany-to-increase-defence-spending

They voted shortly after that to bump defense spending.

They still lean on us too much. It is irritating seeing the EU do that.

[RandomGuy]

:lol more retardation as from NATO lemming

Ukraines president being couped by neonazi criminals is equivalent to Panamas president being couped by a drug cartel. You don't think USA would protect their interests in the Panama Canal?? Crimea is pretty much Russia's Panama Canal

Panama Canal is not really all that important to the US, either economically, or militarily, FYI.

[SnakeBoy]

http://www.janes.com/article/52745/germany-to-increase-defence-spending

They voted shortly after that to bump defense spending.

They still lean on us too much. It is irritating seeing the EU do that.

140 billion over 15 years is nothing considering how far they let their military decline.

[hater]

Panama Canal is not really all that important to the US, either economically, or militarily, FYI.

tell that to 1980-2000 USA. they killed Panamanian president Omar Torrijos for it. They also bombed Panama City with the excuse to get ONE GUY (noriega for drug charges) ONE FUCKING GUY. they killed thousands of civilians in the bombing just to get ONE GUY. apparently. (right, it had nothing to do with Noriega being drug connected but because Noriega stopped following US orders)

yeah, Panama Canal didn't mean anything to USA :lol

heres some truth dose on this issue:

As Human Rights Watch wrote, even conservative estimates of civilian fatalities suggested "that the rule of proportionality and the duty to minimize harm to civilians… were not faithfully observed by the invading US forces." That may have been putting it mildly when it came to the indiscriminant bombing of a civilian population, but the point at least was made. Civilians were given no notice. The Cobra and Apache helicopters that came over the ridge didn't bother to announce their pending arrival by blasting Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" (as in Apocalypse Now). The University of Panama's seismograph marked 442 major explosions in the first 12 hours of the invasion, about one major bomb blast every two minutes. Fires engulfed the mostly wooden homes, destroying about 4,000 residences. Some residents began to call El Chorrillo "Guernica" or "little Hiroshima." Shortly after hostilities ended, bulldozers excavated mass graves and shoveled in the bodies. "Buried like dogs," said the mother of one of the civilian dead.

[hater]

that's right. US soliders buried the Panamanian civilians like dogs...

US bombing and invasion of Panama makes Russian in Crimea look like Tibetan Monks

[RandomGuy]

140 billion over 15 years is nothing considering how far they let their military decline.

Something else we can agree on.

[RandomGuy]

tell that to 1980-2000 USA. they killed Panamanian president Omar Torrijos for it. They also bombed Panama City with the excuse to get ONE GUY (noriega for drug charges) ONE FUCKING GUY. they killed thousands of civilians in the bombing just to get ONE GUY. apparently. (right, it had nothing to do with Noriega being drug connected but because Noriega stopped following US orders)

yeah, Panama Canal didn't mean anything to USA :lol

heres some truth dose on this issue:

As Human Rights Watch wrote, even conservative estimates of civilian fatalities suggested "that the rule of proportionality and the duty to minimize harm to civilians… were not faithfully observed by the invading US forces." That may have been putting it mildly when it came to the indiscriminant bombing of a civilian population, but the point at least was made. Civilians were given no notice. The Cobra and Apache helicopters that came over the ridge didn't bother to announce their pending arrival by blasting Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" (as in Apocalypse Now). The University of Panama's seismograph marked 442 major explosions in the first 12 hours of the invasion, about one major bomb blast every two minutes. Fires engulfed the mostly wooden homes, destroying about 4,000 residences. Some residents began to call El Chorrillo "Guernica" or "little Hiroshima." Shortly after hostilities ended, bulldozers excavated mass graves and shoveled in the bodies. "Buried like dogs," said the mother of one of the civilian dead.

Thousands? Even your own links, if you follow through don't peg it at that high. Hundreds, which is what Human rights watch puts it at.


These figures appear to indicate, therefore, that at least 280 to 305 civilians, and possibly more, died in Panama, which is very near our estimate of 300,
https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/iraq/panama91_appen.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/04/01/world/panama-and-us-strive-to-settle-on-death-toll.html

[RandomGuy]

that's right. US soliders buried the Panamanian civilians like dogs...

US bombing and invasion of Panama makes Russian in Crimea look like Tibetan Monks

Crimea's illegal annexation was carried out fairly bloodlessly. Kudos to the little green men for that.

East Ukraine...not so much. They still made out better than Chechnya.

[velik_m]

You are on the adriatic with Austria, Hungary, Ukraine, the old Czech republic, etc between you and them. Turkey defends from the south. It's very easy for you to say. At the same time your country voted to join NATO which has one purpose: to defend from Russian expansion which belies your claim based on personal anecdote.

Yes, my country voted for NATO membership, the decision was sold as part of the same process as joining the EU and the referendum was even held on the same day. Anyway 75% of people now don't support any increase in military spending and it would be a political suicide for any party to champion such increase. If you want to kick us out, go ahead. I'm sure there will be much jubilation on our streets.

[z0sa]

Yes, my country voted for NATO membership, the decision was sold as part of the same process as joining the EU and the referendum was even held on the same day. Anyway 75% of people now don't support any increase in military spending and it would be a political suicide for any party to champion such increase. If you want to kick us out, go ahead. I'm sure there will be much jubilation on our streets.

Honorable.

[boutons_deux]

The industrial, productive might of USA + EU vastly outweighs the 100% corrupt facade of Putin. If Putin did invade Baltics, he would lose but the warfare would destroy the Baltics.

Plus, Putin's oil revenues from the world market are way down, as they were when they collapsed the USSR in the 1980s, exposing USSRs military/industrical might as a facade.

[RandomGuy]

Crimea was criminal expansion which meets the standard of imperial expansion. The proxy war they are playing in Ukraine the same. What has NATO done?


:lol more retardation as from NATO lemming

Ukraines president being couped by neonazi criminals is equivalent to Panamas president being couped by a drug cartel. You don't think USA would protect their interests in the Panama Canal?? Crimea is pretty much Russia's Panama Canal

You didn't really answer the question.

NATO didn't invade Panama.

What has NATO done that is equivalent to occupying and annexing another sovereign country's territory?

[hater]

So assassinating a sitting president and invading and bombing another is not a sign of criminal imperial expansion???

:lmao wow just wow

[RandomGuy]

Yes, my country voted for NATO membership, the decision was sold as part of the same process as joining the EU and the referendum was even held on the same day. Anyway 75% of people now don't support any increase in military spending and it would be a political suicide for any party to champion such increase. If you want to kick us out, go ahead. I'm sure there will be much jubilation on our streets.

Why then, should the US subsidize your defense, if you don't want to share the cost? We already let Germany sponge off us.
That is the thing about treaties, they work both ways. Easy to vote to let others pay, I guess.

[RandomGuy]

Crimea was criminal expansion which meets the standard of imperial expansion. The proxy war they are playing in Ukraine the same. What has NATO done?


:lol more retardation as from NATO lemming

Ukraines president being couped by neonazi criminals is equivalent to Panamas president being couped by a drug cartel. You don't think USA would protect their interests in the Panama Canal?? Crimea is pretty much Russia's Panama Canal


You didn't really answer the question.

NATO didn't invade Panama.

What has NATO done that is equivalent to occupying and annexing another sovereign country's territory?


So assassinating a sitting president and invading and bombing another is not a sign of criminal imperial expansion???

:lmao wow just wow

Again, not an answer to the question.

NATO did not invade Panama. Nor, for that matter did Noriega die in the attack.

3rd time:
Crimea was criminal expansion which meets the standard of imperial expansion. The proxy war [Russia is] playing in Ukraine the same. What has NATO done?

[hater]

Omar Torrijos died. Murdered by the CIA because he was taking back control of the canal through the treaty signed with Carter.

US not only broke the treaty but also killed the Panamanian president for good measure.

They also installed Noriega as their man in Panama but after Noriega stopped following their orders, they decided to invade and bomb Panama.

Criminal Imperialism at its finest.

[velik_m]

Why then, should the US subsidize your defense, if you don't want to share the cost? We already let Germany sponge off us.
That is the thing about treaties, they work both ways. Easy to vote to let others pay, I guess.

Then don't "subsidize" it. It looks like you have a problem with your goverment, not us. I don't see how getting involved in Syria, Iraq... helps our "defense" anyway. I would argue it does the opposite.

Our army is useless anyway and as far as i see it, it's just a very expensive LARP for meatheads, who coldn't get jobs anywhere else.

[hater]

Then don't "subsidize" it. It looks like you have a problem with your goverment, not us. I don't see how getting involved in Syria, Iraq... helps our "defense" anyway. I would argue it does the opposite.

Our army is useless anyway and as far as i see it, it's just a very expensive LARP for meatheads, who coldn't get jobs anywhere else.

truth nukem

[Winehole23]

Threats perceived by whome? That's the whole point, just because US goverment is for some reason affraid of Putin, doesn't mean everyone else is. I can tell you no one in Slovenia regards Russia as a serious threat. I mean if you would push me really hard to name countries as threats, Italy, Hungary and Croatia would come up way higher. I'd rather see them cut military spending than increase it.Slovenia is a country of 2 million people, not scared of Russia, and ST posters trying to get silly Americans an ocean away from the putative threat, to piss their pants.

OTOH, what about the Baltics? Irredentism, and so forth.

Nostalgia of the previous border can be internally persuasive. Whether the game is worth the candle is another thing, but the swagger short of outright war mobilizes patriots.

[Winehole23]

as a state in decline, Russian internal relations are crucial for the current regime.

[Winehole23]

Smiting or threatening to smite the decadent west, seems to work. a campaign of murder against crusading journalists and putting the political opposition in jail does the rest.

[Winehole23]

it's bad for the country when you constantly seek to make the opposition illegal and put them in jail.

Politics isn't all about who you hate. It's also about making good policy with other people whom you respect but do not agree with, for the people you represent.

Agreement is underrated.

[velik_m]

Slovenia is a country of 2 million people, not scared of Russia, and ST posters trying to get silly Americans an ocean away from the putative threat, to piss their pants.

OTOH, what about the Baltics? Irredentism, and so forth.

Nostalgia of the previous border can be internally persuasive. Whether the game is worth the candle is another thing, but the swagger short of outright war mobilizes patriots.

Sure, i'm sure there are plenty of people in Baltics scared of Russia. But Estonia and Latvia are like 25% russians. It's like trying to get states with plenty of Mexicans to finance a wall against Mexico. It's unappealing to large segment of population and wrong solution anyway.

Putin's regime is corrupt and he's seeking outside conflict to distract his population from Russians internal problems. But NATO putting huge army right on Russia's border plays perfectly into his hand. NATO is behaving excatly like an external threat does, it's saving him from having to manufacture a threat and it builds his regimes legitimacy, because he can always point to NATO's aggresive behaviour. Any internal opposition is labeled unpatriotic and enemy agents, trying to destabilize the country with enemies at the gates.

NATO buildups and exercises at Russia's border are not only pointless, they are also counter-productive.

[Winehole23]

It's hard to disagree. NATO lost focus.

It doesn't know what its mission is. You know that when Montenegro becomes an official ally.

[Winehole23]

Shady actions in Libya (Obama) and Yugoslavia (Clinton)


NATO has long since exceeded its defensive mandate.

[hater]

On that note. Let's take a look at what's going on in Ukraine and the multiple army drafts:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraines-military-mobilization-undermined-by-draft-dodgers/2015/04/25/fc3a5818-d236-11e4-8b1e-274d670aa9c9_story.html

Ukraine is trying to build a force of 250,000 able ready soldiers, mainly by issuing multiple drafts. Problem is, most draftees don't wanna fight and would rather ignore the call and run away:

“I decided a long time ago that I wouldn’t respond to the order,” said Igor, a 25-year-old worker with a nongovernmental organization within Kiev, who received a draft summons in February. “I am not at all interested in participating in such a conflict. They should have been acting much more effectively to have fewer victims — I don’t want to end up on the victim list myself.”

between one-third and one-half of the more than 6,000 deaths in the Ukrainian conflict were in the military, and Igor cites systemic problems — such as draft commanders who ask for bribes, and commanders, including the president, who maintain Russian business ties while asking soldiers to die for Ukraine — as reasons why he and many others cannot bring themselves to serve.

...there are very harsh criminal penalties for draft dodgers.” acknowledged military spokesman Vladislav Seleznev


“I would rather sit in prison for three years — and be fed and secure — than serve,” said Andrey, 26, a metal plant worker who was drafted in March. “After a whole year of this government, we still have to work for two days to buy a loaf of bread. I don’t want to go fight for that kind of government.”

:lol NATO

:lol Ukraine's new government

they are in a worse state than before, especially since now they are in a state of civil war

“We were fighting for autonomy, for the right to live and work in our own region. When the army came, they just bombarded us for two months in a row,” Andrey said. “And now I’m supposed to go and fight for them? I don’t think so.”

Thanks to Washington Post for printing some truth about the civil war in Ukraine. One could also add that out of 117,044 people who received draft calls in the "4th wave" and came for medical examination, only 52,962 people were deemed ready to serve by the doctors. It's less than 50%. People are trying to avoid being drafted into the civil war in many different ways.

I don't blame foreign posters here not wanting their countries go the same way of Ukraine just to accomplish NATO imperialist goals. They win or lose they will get nothing out of it.

[hater]

oh yeah. latest news is that Ukraine will now change the way they do the draft. They will not announce it ahead of time anymore. this is so the draftees don't have time to run

step right up, come and fight and die for Western bankers...

:lol what a disgrace

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then don't "subsidize" it. It looks like you have a problem with your goverment, not us. I don't see how getting involved in Syria, Iraq... helps our "defense" anyway. I would argue it does the opposite.

Our army is useless anyway and as far as i see it, it's just a very expensive LARP for meatheads, who coldn't get jobs anywhere else.

You just built a pipeline through Turkey into the Adriatic and you cannot figure out how it might impact your national security?

I'm looking up something that corroborates your stance on Slovenian attitudes and how you claim it was sold. Everything I'm finding speaks to the opposite. Basically saying that Slovenia is the most liberal of the former yugoslavia and that the hangups have revolved around border disputes with Croatia.

[velik_m]

You just built a pipeline through Turkey into the Adriatic and you cannot figure out how it might impact your national security?

I'm looking up something that corroborates your stance on Slovenian attitudes and how you claim it was sold. Everything I'm finding speaks to the opposite. Basically saying that Slovenia is the most liberal of the former yugoslavia and that the hangups have revolved around border disputes with Croatia.

"We" built a pipeline? That is news to me, since our country can barely scrape together money to pay for police and firefighters.

As for the second part:
The speech by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson (at the time):
http://nato.int/docu/speech/2002/index.html

And here is the speach of Jamie Shea (NATO PR) at the time in the Slovenian parliament:
http://nato.gov.si/slo/slovenija-nato/javna-mnenja/govor-shea/

Note the use of "Euro-Atlantic" and references to EU to link both together. There are also some vague promises of being able to influence USA policies (:lol) and cheaper defensive spending.

"Euro-Atlantic" particularly was a key phrase to referer to both EU and NATO membership together and was used all the time by Slovenian politicans. I'm sure you can find plenty of sources.

Here is more recent recap of events leading to Slovenia joining NATO by a retired slovenian diplomat:
https://www.dnevnik.si/1042655633

Note the part:

S članstvom v Natu, ki se mu je 1. maja pridružilo še članstvo v Evropski uniji, je Slovenija zaključila proces integriranja v vse najpomembnejše mednarodne institucije in mehanizme. S tem je udejanjila svoj strateški cilj biti del »svobodne, demokratične in celovite Evrope, ki živi v miru v širši evroatlanski skupnosti skupnih vrednot«.

Translation:

With membership in NATO, followed by May 1st membership in the European Union , Slovenia has completed the process of integration in all the major international institutions and mechanisms . This has realized its strategic goal to be part of " free, democratic and undivided Europe , living in peace in the broader Euro-Atlantic community of shared values ​​."

It's still seen as "achievement reached". Slovenians have zero interest in actually participating in any conflicts.

p.s. The Slovenia-Croatia border dispute is still unresolved.

[Winehole23]

Their conclusion illustrates the folly years ago of treating NATO as a social club and inducting new members which were irrelevant to the continent’s security and possessed minimal military capabilities. At the time, Russia was too weak to make much of a fuss and U.S. officials assumed that mere words would suffice to defend those inducted. NATO expansion was considered a great success. But now the alliance realizes that it is obligated to war against nuclear-armed Russia on behalf of three essentially indefensible countries.http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-earth-would-russia-attack-the-baltics-15139

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"We" built a pipeline? That is news to me, since our country can barely scrape together money to pay for police and firefighters.

As for the second part:
The speech by NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson (at the time):
http://nato.int/docu/speech/2002/index.html

And here is the speach of Jamie Shea (NATO PR) at the time in the Slovenian parliament:
http://nato.gov.si/slo/slovenija-nato/javna-mnenja/govor-shea/

Note the use of "Euro-Atlantic" and references to EU to link both together. There are also some vague promises of being able to influence USA policies (:lol) and cheaper defensive spending.

"Euro-Atlantic" particularly was a key phrase to referer to both EU and NATO membership together and was used all the time by Slovenian politicans. I'm sure you can find plenty of sources.

Here is more recent recap of events leading to Slovenia joining NATO by a retired slovenian diplomat:
https://www.dnevnik.si/1042655633

Note the part:


Translation:


It's still seen as "achievement reached". Slovenians have zero interest in actually participating in any conflicts.

p.s. The Slovenia-Croatia border dispute is still unresolved.

Still waiting for something to support your 75% of Slovenians assertion. Your quote clearly identifies the two as separate incidents and does not give the link that you assert. Temporal order is only that.

As for the pipeline, yes as in you, the Hungarians, etc built a pipeline from the area around Ukraine and the plains west of the Caspian to the adriatic and the Med. While I have zero doubt that you got much foreign investment to get it done, you guys benefit economically immensely being the shipping endpoint. IOW, what happens in Ukraine and the area around Crimea directly impacts your economy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-earth-would-russia-attack-the-baltics-15139

And yet Russia is concerned about their southern flank and is rattling sabers. You can wave your hands at the tactical situation in the north claiming that if they bring all their force to bear we cannot win there but it ignores teh strategic implications of the Russians exposing their southern flank. They know and are currently having 'massive' war games out by the Caspian.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-southwest-russia-massive-military-drills/

That is where the lions share of their oil comes from. They can take the area 500 mi around Moscow but if they lose the strategic oil fields in the SW they are screwed. Turks have been fighting with them over the area for 400 years.

[velik_m]

Still waiting for something to support your 75% of Slovenians assertion.


Ob obisku generalnega sekretarja Zveze Nato Jensa Stoltenberga v Ljubljani, ki je izrazil pričakovanje, da bo Slovenija povečala svoje obrambne izdatke, nas je zanimalo, ali so vprašani temu naklonjeni. Skoraj tri četrtine jih povečanja deleža sredstev za obrambo ne podpira.

https://www.dnevnik.si/1042717061/slovenija/vox-populi-za-obrambo-dajemo-dovolj

(almost 3/4, to be fair there are some other polls at the time, which put opposition at "only" over 50% against)


Your quote clearly identifies the two as separate incidents and does not give the link that you assert. Temporal order is only that.

Sure, feel free to lecture me on Slovenian politics.


As for the pipeline, yes as in you, the Hungarians, etc built a pipeline from the area around Ukraine and the plains west of the Caspian to the adriatic and the Med. While I have zero doubt that you got much foreign investment to get it done, you guys benefit economically immensely being the shipping endpoint. IOW, what happens in Ukraine and the area around Crimea directly impacts your economy.

You mean the Russian pipeline, that was abandoned, because it was blocked by EU? How is being member of NATO helping protect this non-existant pipeline?

No shit, what happens around Russia directly impacts our economy, Russia is one of our major trade partners. Why would i want to be more hostile towards them?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

https://www.dnevnik.si/1042717061/slovenija/vox-populi-za-obrambo-dajemo-dovolj

(almost 3/4, to be fair there are some other polls at the time, which put opposition at "only" over 50% against)



Sure, feel free to lecture me on Slovenian politics.



You mean the Russian pipeline, that was abandoned, because it was blocked by EU? How is being member of NATO helping protect this non-existant pipeline?

No shit, what happens around Russia directly impacts our economy, Russia is one of our major trade partners. Why would i want to be more hostile towards them?

That link doesn't state that quote. I don't know slovenian but translating on the interwebs isn't hard. Your quote is not on that page. The word NATO is not on that page either.

It goes through old soviet states yes and I suppose that it starts in Russia but its not shut off. It primarily runs through Kazakhstan because of how much oil comes from that region. Considering what a small country even you claim to be and that the west Caspian is where the lions share comes from I think it is integral to your economy. I'm not talking about the southern route that was shut down due to the current conflict all though that only serves to underscore my point.

I'm not lecturing you on politics. I'm lecturing you on what your article logically determines. All it says is one came before the other and does not say that it was dependent or even sold as dependent. It is what it is. I have no idea who you are and for all I know you are a troll on a VPN. I have no reason to trust you. Your assumption without even attempting to prove that assertion is not helping that either.

[RandomGuy]

Crimea was criminal expansion which meets the standard of imperial expansion. The proxy war they are playing in Ukraine the same. What has NATO done?


:lol more retardation as from NATO lemming

Ukraines president being couped by neonazi criminals is equivalent to Panamas president being couped by a drug cartel. You don't think USA would protect their interests in the Panama Canal?? Crimea is pretty much Russia's Panama Canal


You didn't really answer the question.

NATO didn't invade Panama.

What has NATO done that is equivalent to occupying and annexing another sovereign country's territory?


So assassinating a sitting president and invading and bombing another is not a sign of criminal imperial expansion???

:lmao wow just wow


Again, not an answer to the question.

NATO did not invade Panama. Nor, for that matter did Noriega die in the attack.

3rd time:
Crimea was criminal expansion which meets the standard of imperial expansion. The proxy war [Russia is] playing in Ukraine the same. What has NATO done?


Omar Torrijos died. Murdered by the CIA because he was taking back control of the canal through the treaty signed with Carter.

US not only broke the treaty but also killed the Panamanian president for good measure.

They also installed Noriega as their man in Panama but after Noriega stopped following their orders, they decided to invade and bomb Panama.

Criminal Imperialism at its finest.

More failure.

So it is safe to assume then, that NATO has not done anything similar. If it were otherwise, you would have pointed it out.

Thank you.

[RandomGuy]

Shady actions in Libya (Obama) and Yugoslavia (Clinton)


NATO has long since exceeded its defensive mandate.

Define "shady".

Was it something like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/01/world/europe/bosnia-mass-grave/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Define "shady".

Was it something like this?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/01/world/europe/bosnia-mass-grave/

We've been fighting over Belgrade since the Romans sacked the Seleucid's empire and started settling around the Black sea. It's a strategic chokepoint and the route by which the west can transport whatever quite easily to the Russian southern flank and the southern caucuses.

Ferdinand's assassination was the initial event but Russia's competition with the Austrian's over Belgrade was the real reason for the war. Austrians wanted to be the gatekeepers considering their geographic location. Russian czarists have a Pan Slavic vision that is similar to what we call manifest destiny. This is not surprising considering they are the descendants of what was left after the Mongols and Turks raped and seized the Eastern Roman Empire.

I have always thought it convenient that Bolshevik and similar authoritarian types want to reprise the czar's foreign policy objectives. At least now Putin kowtows to the Eastern Church who would love to have the Hagia Sophia back. It's delusion vs delusion. They missed Marx's point.

[velik_m]

That link doesn't state that quote. I don't know slovenian but translating on the interwebs isn't hard. Your quote is not on that page. The word NATO is not on that page either.

It's obviously hard for you. Here try direct link to poll results: http://www.ninamedia.si/vprasanja.php?mesec=jul15


It goes through old soviet states yes and I suppose that it starts in Russia but its not shut off. It primarily runs through Kazakhstan because of how much oil comes from that region. Considering what a small country even you claim to be and that the west Caspian is where the lions share comes from I think it is integral to your economy. I'm not talking about the southern route that was shut down due to the current conflict all though that only serves to underscore my point.

It's not integral to our economy. You know what is integral to our economy? Trade with Russia. Anwser this: How does antagonizing our major trade partner help our "safety"? We should cut our social spending to piss of our major trade partner - pure genius. Nothing spells safety like a long recession.


I'm not lecturing you on politics. I'm lecturing you on what your article logically determines. All it says is one came before the other and does not say that it was dependent or even sold as dependent. It is what it is. I have no idea who you are and for all I know you are a troll on a VPN. I have no reason to trust you. Your assumption without even attempting to prove that assertion is not helping that either.

You have no idea what you're talking about. EU and NATO were sold as connected (Euro-atlantic), i lived through it. I'm not searching the web for it just for you. But sure, i'm a troll on decade long con just waiting for this moment, when i can troll you for knowing nothing about Slovenia. :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's obviously hard for you. Here try direct link to poll results: http://www.ninamedia.si/vprasanja.php?mesec=jul15



It's not integral to our economy. You know what is integral to our economy? Trade with Russia. Anwser this: How does antagonizing our major trade partner help our "safety"? We should cut our social spending to piss of our major trade partner - pure genius. Nothing spells safety like a long recession.



You have no idea what you're talking about. EU and NATO were sold as connected (Euro-atlantic), i lived through it. I'm not searching the web for it just for you. But sure, i'm a troll on decade long con just waiting for this moment, when i can troll you for knowing nothing about Slovenia. :lol

Again, people lie around here as a matter of course, use VPNs to play like their french or all manner of places and the like. The fact that you act coy to all this and instead try to paint it as me being stupid to think this would be a one time thing is amusing but really belies your attempt. Nice strawman though.

If you lived through it, it should be very easy to find news articles to support it. Journalism opinions pieces or anything. You having failed to do so speaks louder than your platitudes.

The site is in a foreign language and you gave the wrong link. Trying to pin it on me is cute but that is your failure. The poll asks whether or not you should double defense expenditures. It's not quite the same as your platitude.

On a final note, what is Russia's major export and what does mutually exclusive mean?

[velik_m]

Again, people lie around here as a matter of course, use VPNs to play like their french or all manner of places and the like. The fact that you act coy to all this and instead try to paint it as me being stupid to think this would be a one time thing is amusing but really belies your attempt. Nice strawman though.

If you lived through it, it should be very easy to find news articles to support it. Journalism opinions pieces or anything. You having failed to do so speaks louder than your platitudes.

No it speaks of the state of the internet and newspaper archives in Slovenia more than a decade ago. For most newspapers you have to pay if you want to search such old archives and i simply don't care enough to do it.


The site is in a foreign language and you gave the wrong link. Trying to pin it on me is cute but that is your failure. The poll asks whether or not you should double defense expenditures. It's not quite the same as your platitude.

No, that's not what the poll asks. It asks whether Slovenia should increase defensive spending or not. If you can't speak Slovenian and are unable to translate it (p.s. google translate is rubish for small languages and slovenian is pretty complicated one at that) why are you even disquising Slovenian politics? You have zero insight into it. Bottom line people don't support increasing defense budget and the goverment currently at their lowest support would be crazy to even attempt it.


On a final note, what is Russia's major export and what does mutually exclusive mean?

Don't care. Slovenia has positive trade balance with them, i care about their imports. How about you now anwser my question: How does antagonizing our major trade partner help our "safety"? I guess shrinking our GDP is one way to get our defense budget closer to 2% GDP, i'm not sure that helps the alliance all that much.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just want one link and if you cannot prove it then fine but there is no reason for anyone to believe you without one. You are still acting coy and refuse to acknowledge the troll dynamic that goes on here. Again what does mutually exclusive mean? You clearly do not understand the concept.


Ob obisku generalnega sekretarja Zveze Nato Jensa Stoltenberga v Ljubljani, ki je izrazil pričakovanje, da bo Slovenija povečala svoje obrambne izdatke, nas je zanimalo, ali so vprašani temu naklonjeni. Skoraj tri četrtine jih povečanja deleža sredstev za obrambo ne podpira.

translates to


NATO expects Slovenia to increase its defense spending . Slovenia has committed itself to the defense spending devote two percent of gross domestic product ( GDP ) , is currently for these benefits for less than one percent of GDP . Or Slovenia should therefore increase the proportion of defense spending or not ?

That is what google translates the poll question to. It clearly references current spending at less than 1% and whether or not to increase it to 2%. The way it frames is whether or not to raise it up to 2% from where it is now.

Why don't I answer your question? Because it's premise assumes your argument and I don't play those half-assed games. If you want to make the point that 'antagonizing Russia' would be harmful then make it. Don't backdoor into the conclusion with loaded questions. I can just as easily ask why should it.

[velik_m]

Sigh. I'll translate the actual question for you and then i'll go to bed, because it's getting late i have work tommorow:

Zveza Nato pričakuje, da bo Slovenija povečala svoje obrambne izdatke.

Nato Alliance expects Slovenia to increase its defesive spending.

Slovenija se je zavezala, da bo za obrambne izdatke namenjala dva odstotka bruto domačega proizvoda (BDP), trenutno pa za te izdatke namenja manj kot odstotek BDP.

Slovenia commited to spending 2% GDP for defensive spending, but is currently spending less than 1% GDP for this expenses.

Ali naj torej Slovenija poveča delež sredstev za obrambo ali ne?

Should Slovenia therefore increase its share of founds for defense or not?

It's says nothing about how much the increase would be, but i do admit it's a bit leading. Here you have a second poll after Slovenian PM commited (at the mitting) to increasing spending... gradually... starting in 2017:

http://www.delo.si/novice/politika/anketa-dela-slovenci-so-precej-naklonjeni-nemcij.html

Half (49%) opposes, about 1/3rd supports.

p.s. you can see the join date if you click the user profile.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sigh. I'll translate the actual question for you and then i'll go to bed, because it's getting late i have work tommorow:

Zveza Nato pričakuje, da bo Slovenija povečala svoje obrambne izdatke.

Nato Alliance expects Slovenia to increase its defesive spending.

Slovenija se je zavezala, da bo za obrambne izdatke namenjala dva odstotka bruto domačega proizvoda (BDP), trenutno pa za te izdatke namenja manj kot odstotek BDP.

Slovenia commited to spending 2% GDP for defensive spending, but is currently spending less than 1% GDP for this expenses.

Ali naj torej Slovenija poveča delež sredstev za obrambo ali ne?

Should Slovenia therefore increase its share of founds for defense or not?

It's says nothing about how much the increase would be, but i do admit it's a bit leading. Here you have a second poll after Slovenian PM commited (at the mitting) to increasing spending... gradually... starting in 2017:

http://www.delo.si/novice/politika/anketa-dela-slovenci-so-precej-naklonjeni-nemcij.html

Half (49%) opposes, about 1/3rd supports.

p.s. you can see the join date if you click the user profile.

It's no different than what I posted. Quit being gratuitous.

Slovenia is committed to this. . . . should we increase spending? It's a loaded question. Phrased differently and the results changing by 25 should tell you something.

PS - what does join date have to do with anything? You trying to pretend that the trolling is a new phenomenon? Sure there was a troll forum the very start but do you think they stayed there? You think VPN's weren't around then?

Mind you I am not saying that you are a troll. I'm just saying around this place its impossible to tell and the owners don't give a shit as they do it too. Your a fool to give anyone the benefit of the doubt around here. That is the dynamic I'm saying you are obtuse to. I've been here from the beginning but I never ask anyone to just take me at my own personal anecdotes. nullius in verba is a good ethic to have in any circumstance.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I just want one link and if you cannot prove it then fine but there is no reason for anyone to believe you without one. You are still acting coy and refuse to acknowledge the troll dynamic that goes on here. Again what does mutually exclusive mean? You clearly do not understand the concept.


Fuck man...one short of the trifecta, just needed to fit wishcasting in this post.

[boutons_deux]

Russian military deployed near Ukraine for huge exercises
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35532842