Will Russia Attack Ukraine?

Hopefully this one works. That Turkstream Pipeline, doesn't it also end up in NE Italy. I didn't try to link that earlier one. There are lots of different maps out there, I just used Russian Oil and Gas supply chains and several popped up. One thing I notice is how many of these Lines go through Ukraine. It is akin to Airline hubs at major airports strategically located around a country. E.g., here in the US, Delta's main hub is Atlanta. You fly United you are likely going through Chicago-O'Hare.

https://www.rt.com/business/469674-r...elines-europe/

As I noted earlier, once Russia gets NORD2 running, that pipeline links 2 countries, Russia and Germany. Not that those other pipelines will not be as important, but the NORD2 is a big deal given Germany, and the Netherlands which it borders to its West, are the 2 biggest customers of Russian Oil and Gas. Those Ukraine land based pipelines are no longer as important for Russia relative to its largest 2 European customers, Germany and the Netherlands. Russia no longer has to pay Ukraine the transit fees to move Oil and Gas through the Ukraine, and those fees are material to the Ukrainian Government's budget. To be this Ukrainian crisis is a manufactured one by Putin to ensure NORD2 gets finished. There are not many countries that have to approve it, in fact USA media sources confirm that there is not much the USA can do to stop approval. If Germany approves it, it becomes Operational.

The unjustified interference of the US during the previous administration re: NordStream 2 is the major reason we are where we are right now. The LNG terminals on both sides of The Atlantic are ready and already pumping LNG into the European pipeline system. So there is absolutely no reason for this charade to continue. In about 2-3 years Europe will be awash in natural gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsnake49

The unjustified interference of the US during the previous administration re: NordStream 2 is the major reason we are where we are right now. The LNG terminals on both sides of The Atlantic are ready and already pumping LNG into the European pipeline system. So there is absolutely no reason for this charade to continue. In about 2-3 years Europe will be awash in natural gas.

---

Well I understand the US perhaps should have not gotten involve with NORD2. But as an American voter who is tired of all the neo-liberal (DEM) and neo-con (REP) foreign policy adventures where US kids get sent to fight wars abroad for what I don't know, this whole NORD2 and NATO arrangement where Germany as the 4th largest economy in the world still does not pay the NATO required 2% of GDP is a sticking point. As I noted it was Trump trying to stop the NORD2 which directly links Russian distribution terminals to German ports that can receive LNG. From an American perspective, it seems strange for the US to have 35K forces stationed in Germany, which is about 1/2 of the normal 70k stationed in Europe, Germany being the country with the most US personnel stationed in Europe, the other top countries are the UK, Italy )US Navy 6th fleet is based in Southern Italy near Naples) and Turkey. So who are these 35K US troops defending Germany from? Russia? Yet, Germany unilaterally contracts with Putin to build NORD2 so they can meet their Oil and Gas supplies as they move away from Coal and Nuclear power. I totally get the economics of it from Germany's perspective and Putin wanting to sell Oil and Gas to the European markets (4 of the 8 largest Economies in the world are in Europe, Germany 4, UK 5, France 7 and Italy 8). But in terms of NATO and military spending in terms of assets and personnel, why am I as a US tax payer paying for Germany's defense. They can afford to pay the NATO costs of keeping US forces at that level committed in Germany.

Well, as I predicted, Putin went into the areas adjacent to Russia which are heavy in Russian migrants, and which have "revolutionary" military forces, called terrorists by the Ukrainian government. Russia is going in to "keep the piece", and is going to recognize the areas as independent states.

Hitler justified the invasion of Czechoslovakia on the grounds that the Volksdeutsche were being abused, and Germany had to "protect" them. There was no mention of setting up puppet governments which can "invite" the invaders in so at least that is new.

Just read the vaunted sanctions our government is putting in place and not one of them applies to Russia directly, only to these puppet states. NATO published the same twaddle it's been publishing for months, so, basically, nothing to really say.

As I also predicted, the west won't do anything, and Putin will continue his holy mission of reconstituting the U.S.S.R.

The wall is now supposedly drawn with Poland and Hungary or perhaps first, the Baltic States, all of which countries are already part of NATO.

Europe just keeps repeating the same old patterns over and over again. Nothing ever really changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, as I predicted, Putin went into the areas adjacent to Russia which are heavy in Russian migrants, and which have "revolutionary" military forces, called terrorists by the Ukrainian government. Russia is going in to "keep the piece", and is going to recognize the areas as independent states.

Hitler justified the invasion of Czechoslovakia on the grounds that the Volksdeutsche were being abused, and Germany had to "protect" them. There was no mention of setting up puppet governments which can "invite" the invaders in so at least that is new.

Just read the vaunted sanctions our government is putting in place and not one of them applies to Russia directly, only to these puppet states. NATO published the same twaddle it's been publishing for months, so, basically, nothing to really say.

As I also predicted, the west won't do anything, and Putin will continue his holy mission of reconstituting the U.S.S.R.

The wall is now supposedly drawn with Poland and Hungary or perhaps first, the Baltic States, all of which countries are already part of NATO.

Europe just keeps repeating the same old patterns over and over again. Nothing ever really changes.

---

Angela: What you said is true and not only are there Russian migrants in Ukraine, almost 20% of its population are Russian. But the reality is it was the USA that pushed for NATO to expand into Ukraine. Interestingly, France and Germany were always opposed to it. And I think their instincts on this one turned out to be correct.

Poland and Hungary, according to this NPR article was not an issue with Russia but Ukraine has been a sticking point for years. Based on what I got from this NPR article, I suspect that France and Germany are not going to push for a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. So why should the USA do it. If all the European countries in NATO see Putin's move into Ukraine as a threat, they need to take the lead on this one, not the USA.

Both Bill Clinton and George Bush 2 pushed for more Eastward expansion of NATO towards Russia. Looking at the map in the link, While Finland and its fellow Nordic neighbor Sweden have not petitioned for NATO membership, they have kept the door open and I think they have assurances that Norway and Denmark (both charter NATO members) would lobby for the West to come to their aide if Russia moves towards them. But if Finland and Sweden were in NATO, then only Belarus and Ukraine would be a buffer area for Russia in Eastern Europe and Georgia between Turkey and Russia in the Caucuses.



https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/10761...nato-expansion

As for Poland, it does seem that is a line as the USA as part of a NATO contingent has sent 5.7K troops on a rotation basis there. The Baltic States have more NATO troops with some USA forces in Lithuania and Romania. Just over 7K of the 12K USA/NATO combined forces are American. I would like to know what European countries have committed their own troops to the NATO contingent in those areas?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/10/europ...cmd/index.html

Putin should study a little bit of end day Roman Republic history to see what happens when the self interests of a tyrant are in conflict with the other elites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

Well, as I predicted, Putin went into the areas adjacent to Russia which are heavy in Russian migrants, and which have "revolutionary" military forces, called terrorists by the Ukrainian government. Russia is going in to "keep the piece", and is going to recognize the areas as independent states.

Hitler justified the invasion of Czechoslovakia on the grounds that the Volksdeutsche were being abused, and Germany had to "protect" them. There was no mention of setting up puppet governments which can "invite" the invaders in so at least that is new.

Just read the vaunted sanctions our government is putting in place and not one of them applies to Russia directly, only to these puppet states. NATO published the same twaddle it's been publishing for months, so, basically, nothing to really say.

As I also predicted, the west won't do anything, and Putin will continue his holy mission of reconstituting the U.S.S.R.

The wall is now supposedly drawn with Poland and Hungary or perhaps first, the Baltic States, all of which countries are already part of NATO.

Europe just keeps repeating the same old patterns over and over again. Nothing ever really changes.

---

You better could say we are 'drawn back' in nationalistic and historical reasoning. In a language the West (beside the authoritarian-populistic forces supported by the Kremlin!) don't speak any longer....it's way from pragmatic, economic, technocratic reasoning.

Putin is not a broker like Trump....indeed: 'his holy mission of reconstituting the U.S.S.R' I would say the restoration of Czarist Russia!

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

So the answer is not pragmatic or deal making. The answer must be that free, democratic, world must draw a red line now.

Russia beneath 1000 km of Berlin is not a tempting thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

Angela: What you said is true and not only are there Russian migrants in Ukraine, almost 20% of its population are Russian. But the reality is it was the USA that pushed for NATO to expand into Ukraine. Interestingly, France and Germany were always opposed to it. And I think their instincts on this one turned out to be correct.

Poland and Hungary, according to this NPR article was not an issue with Russia but Ukraine has been a sticking point for years. Based on what I got from this NPR article, I suspect that France and Germany are not going to push for a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. So why should the USA do it. If all the European countries in NATO see Putin's move into Ukraine as a threat, they need to take the lead on this one, not the USA.

Both Bill Clinton and George Bush 2 pushed for more Eastward expansion of NATO towards Russia. Looking at the map in the link, While Finland and its fellow Nordic neighbor Sweden have not petitioned for NATO membership, they have kept the door open and I think they have assurances that Norway and Denmark (both charter NATO members) would lobby for the West to come to their aide if Russia moves towards them. But if Finland and Sweden were in NATO, then only Belarus and Ukraine would be a buffer area for Russia in Eastern Europe and Georgia between Turkey and Russia in the Caucuses.



https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/10761...nato-expansion

As for Poland, it does seem that is a line as the USA as part of a NATO contingent has sent 5.7K troops on a rotation basis there. The Baltic States have more NATO troops with some USA forces in Lithuania and Romania. Just over 7K of the 12K USA/NATO combined forces are American. I would like to know what European countries have committed their own troops to the NATO contingent in those areas?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/10/europ...cmd/index.html

---

Beside the current events, Putin puts this on the tabel:

Quote:

---

First of all, I would like to emphasize that the wall that has emerged in recent years between Russia and Ukraine, between the parts of what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space, to my mind is our great common misfortune and tragedy. These are, first and foremost, the consequences of our own mistakes made at different periods of time. But these are also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply has been known from time immemorial – divide and rule. There is nothing new here. Hence the attempts to play on the ”national question“ and sow discord among people, the overarching goal being to divide and then to pit the parts of a single people against one another.


To have a better understanding of the present and look into the future, we need to turn to history. Certainly, it is impossible to cover in this article all the developments that have taken place over more than a thousand years. But I will focus on the key, pivotal moments that are important for us to remember, both in Russia and Ukraine.

---

He is playing the nationalistic historic card.....that needs imo on an ideological level a response, imo one in which liberal political democratic values are a key issue:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Op...nd_Its_Enemies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x70z5QWC9qs

Northerner: He is a Nationalist, I agree. But you don't seem to want to deal with that France and Germany have been on record for 30 years that NATO and Ukraine is not in what they see the best interest of the EU (which they mean themselves) and it certainly is not in my view the interest of the USA to put US forces in Ukraine. Russia is already almost totally bordered by NATO aligned countries. I again am no fan of Putin. Let me make that clear. But when you keep clamoring for a "line in the sand" to thwart Putin, I as I said over and over again, don't think the USA needs to have its young people be the one enforcing that line in the sand. Can we assist via NATO yes, air support via land based aircraft or US carrier based, but the infantry and armored divisions should be European. Yet, as that CNN article I linked indicates, of the 12K USA/NATO personnel in Eastern Europe, 7K are from the USA, 5K from NATO European countries. However, I have been trying to find out which countries from Europe have forces as part of that 5K NATO contingent. I can't find out. So perhaps you can find some European Media sources and provide that for me. Does your own country have forces there? What about Germany? France?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

Northerner: He is a Nationalist, I agree. But you don't seem to want to deal with that France and Germany have been on record for 30 years that NATO and Ukraine is not in what they see the best interest of the EU (which they mean themselves) and it certainly is not in my view the interest of the USA to put US forces in Ukraine. Russia is already almost totally bordered by NATO aligned countries. I again am no fan of Putin. Let me make that clear. But when you keep clamoring for a "line in the sand" to thwart Putin, I as I said over and over again, don't think the USA needs to have its young people be the one enforcing that line in the sand. Can we assist via NATO yes, air support via land based aircraft or US carrier based, but the infantry and armored divisions should be European. Yet, as that CNN article I linked indicates, of the 12K USA/NATO personnel in Eastern Europe, 7K are from the USA, 5K from NATO European countries. However, I have been trying to find out which countries from Europe have forces as part of that 5K NATO contingent. I can't find out. So perhaps you can find some European Media sources and provide that for me. Does your own country have forces there? What about Germany? France?

---

Ukraine has sovereignty so that's not up to Russia. For Putin and Dugin Kiev this is the cradle of Rus so I doubt if they stop in the eastern part. So support and provide the Ukranians to defend themselves.

And more general I'm talking about the ideological challenge Putin/Dugin is 'offering' the West....that is imo more in the line of Lévy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

Ukraine has sovereignty so that's not up to Russia. For Putin and Dugin Kiev is de cradle of Rus so I doubt if they stop in the eastern part. So support and provide the Ukranians to defend themselves.

And more general I'm talking about the ideological challenge Putin/Dugin is 'offering' the West....that is imo more in the line of Lévy!

---

I never said Ukraine does not have it. So we are now talking about an ideological line in the sand. Well He is not the type of leader I would want to live under. So we are in agreement about the ideological line in the sand. I am darn near an absolutist on free speech and love the Right as an American that I think Joe Biden is a stupid SOB. Of course that could get you sent to Siberia if you tried that with Putin. So again, not a fan of Putin's anti individual liberty and freedom ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

Angela: What you said is true and not only are there Russian migrants in Ukraine, almost 20% of its population are Russian. But the reality is it was the USA that pushed for NATO to expand into Ukraine. Interestingly, France and Germany were always opposed to it. And I think their instincts on this one turned out to be correct.

Poland and Hungary, according to this NPR article was not an issue with Russia but Ukraine has been a sticking point for years. Based on what I got from this NPR article, I suspect that France and Germany are not going to push for a confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. So why should the USA do it. If all the European countries in NATO see Putin's move into Ukraine as a threat, they need to take the lead on this one, not the USA.

Both Bill Clinton and George Bush 2 pushed for more Eastward expansion of NATO towards Russia. Looking at the map in the link, While Finland and its fellow Nordic neighbor Sweden have not petitioned for NATO membership, they have kept the door open and I think they have assurances that Norway and Denmark (both charter NATO members) would lobby for the West to come to their aide if Russia moves towards them. But if Finland and Sweden were in NATO, then only Belarus and Ukraine would be a buffer area for Russia in Eastern Europe and Georgia between Turkey and Russia in the Caucuses.



https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/10761...nato-expansion

As for Poland, it does seem that is a line as the USA as part of a NATO contingent has sent 5.7K troops on a rotation basis there. The Baltic States have more NATO troops with some USA forces in Lithuania and Romania. Just over 7K of the 12K USA/NATO combined forces are American. I would like to know what European countries have committed their own troops to the NATO contingent in those areas?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/10/europ...cmd/index.html

---

I completely agree that the U.S. should not be doing the heavy lifting as far as NATO is concerned. It's incredible that we've put up with this crap for decades. Same goes for the U.N. for that matter, a useless organization if ever there was one.

This guy was head of the KGB; he made a career of lying, spying on the west, and oppressing his own people. I just think that taking Putin's word for "anything" is completely unwarranted. We have abundant examples from history of the excuses proffered for land grabs. It's always either completely untrue or only part of the reason. Jn the end, what motivates tyrants is power. So, to take his word that Ukraine is all he wants because of their "unity" is, imo, as naive as it was to believe that Hitler would stop with Czechoslovakia.

At some point, Europe will have to face Russia over the Baltic States, then probably, once again, Poland. They had better be prepared, because if they let those countries go, the road to the west is wide open, and no, the U.S. should not take the lead. It's time for us to stop being Europe's savior.

At least be full participants in your own defense and stop just mouthing platitudes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

I completely agree that the U.S. should not be doing the heavy lifting as far as NATO is concerned. It's incredible that we've put up with this crap for decades. Same goes for the U.N. for that matter, a useless organization if ever there was one.

This guy was head of the KGB; he made a career of lying, spying on the west, and oppressing his own people. I just think that taking Putin's word for "anything" is completely unwarranted. We have abundant examples from history of the excuses proffered for land grabs. It's always either completely untrue or only part of the reason. Jn the end, what motivates tyrants is power. So, to take his word that Ukraine is all he wants because of their "unity" is, imo, as naive as it was to believe that Hitler would stop with Czechoslovakia.

At some point, Europe will have to face Russia over the Baltic States, then probably, once again, Poland. They had better be prepared, because if they let those countries go, the road to the west is wide open, and no, the U.S. should not take the lead. It's time for us to stop being Europe's savior.

At least be full participants in your own defense and stop just mouthing platitudes.

---

US already did all kinds of effort in Ukraine! And Putin is not only trying to destabilize Europe but also the US.....so Europe and US are interacted.....

And I guess Putin could be overstretching it. I don't think in the long run Russia can control the Ukraine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

I completely agree that the U.S. should not be doing the heavy lifting as far as NATO is concerned. It's incredible that we've put up with this crap for decades.

---

Quote:

---

No, the U.S. should not take the lead. It's time for us to stop being Europe's savior.

---

I always wonder why someone is always stating leave the European or the crap alone, should have been done for decades. And at the same time spend hours and hours on EUPEDIA, spell again EUPEDIA and calls herself still ethnic Italian as long as I know part of Europe the EU the NATO etc. I can't cope that....

And on top of that the Russians are also influencing the USA too. But no the thoughts are in and about Europe but the wallet is obviously closed imo indeed a grocery mentality, like good old- I want my money back- Maggie Thatcher.

Hey Angela call on the US to join forces to battle against authoritarian-populism...this affects in the end NY and bella Italia too.....

Mind you for the strict economic minds: In 2019, the US imported 186 billion euros worth of services from the EU while exporting 249 billion euros to the EU.
So you are earning money here. So also a matter of self interrest ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

I always wonder why someone is always stating leave the European or the crap alone, should have been done for decades. And at the same time spend hours and hours on EUPEDIA, spell again EUPEDIA and calls herself still ethnic Italian as long as I know part of Europe the EU the NATO etc. I can't cope that....

And on top of that the Russians are also influencing the USA too. But no the thoughts are in and about Europe but the wallet is obviously closed imo indeed a grocery mentality, like good old- I want my money back- Maggie Thatcher.

Hey Angela call on the US to join forces to battle against authoritarian-populism...this affects in the end NY and bella Italia too.....

---

To think that a call for the members of NATO to fulfill their financial obligations for the defense of Europe, and also to build their own defensive forces should invite such vitriol. Is it perhaps because there is no excuse and so therefore one is left with personal attacks?

Perhaps you should also address your words to Palermo, and perhaps Jovialis, and some of our other members, or is it only women you feel like harassing for their opinions?

Oh, and by the way, I have the right to call to task the U.S., Italy, NATO or anyone or any organization I please. How dare you try to tell me whom I am allowed to criticize?

What a bully you are.

You insult me or harass me again and I assure you the consequences will be far more severe than an infraction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

To think that a call for the members of NATO to fulfill their financial obligations for the defense of Europe, and also to build their own defensive forces should invite such vitriol. Is it perhaps because there is no excuse and so therefore one is left with personal attacks?

Perhaps you should also address your words to Palermo, and perhaps Jovialis, and some of our other members, or is it only women you feel like harassing for their opinions?

Oh, and by the way, I have the right to call to task the U.S., Italy, NATO or anyone or any organization I please. How dare you try to tell me whom I am allowed to criticize?

What a bully you are.

You insult me or harass me again and I assure you the consequences will be far more severe than an infraction.

---

First of all it's imo not a personal (ad hominem) attack, nor is it aimed to, but imo an incongruent kind of view, so on the matter not the person.

I agree it's about a personal view but I can see the difference. I don't why you pick out Jovialis and Palermo, because I discus with them too....So?

Quote:

---

I have the right to call to task the U.S., Italy, NATO or anyone or any organization

---

Of course 100% no doubt....Just I have the right to criticize you about (not personal but imo an incongruent in content) those two points:

Quote:

---

I completely agree that the U.S. should not be doing the heavy lifting as far as NATO is concerned. It's incredible that we've put up with this crap for decades.

No, the U.S. should not take the lead. It's time for us to stop being Europe's savior.

---

NATO is not "crap" imo. And savior is also about self interest.

And its indeed a big wondering why you use crap and stop being savior....so 'bye bye Europe'. And at the same time this forum:

Quote:

---

The Eupedia Forum is a community of people who share a deep interest in Europe and European culture.

---

So "crap" and 'bye bye Europe'.

I can't cope that. I know this can feel uncomfortable....nevertheless this is imo not an insulting or illegitimate question.

I have no time for illogical arguments.

I can be a European and criticize Europe, just as I can be an American and criticize America. There is absolutely nothing incongruent about it.

What is "crap" is not NATO but the nations of Europe by and large not paying their contracted share of the costs. It is an opinion shared by Palermo and Jovialis. Why are you making it personal only to me?

As I said, perhaps it's easier for you to harass women rather than men for their opinions.

I have no interest in having debates with people who cannot be logical, will not answer questions, and moreover seems to delight in harassing me. Direct your questions to the others who have opined on the matter. You will receive no further comments from me.

If you persist in making this personal, you'll get another infraction, and it will escalate from there if you ignore this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

I have no time for illogical arguments.

I can be a European and criticize Europe, just as I can be an American and criticize America. There is absolutely nothing incongruent about it.

What is "crap" is not NATO but the nations of Europe by and large not paying their contracted share of the costs. It is an opinion shared by Palermo and Jovialis. Why are you making it personal only to me?

As I said, perhaps it's easier for you to harass women rather than men for their opinions.

I have no interest in having debates with people who cannot be logical, will not answer questions, and moreover seems to delight in harassing me. Direct your questions to the others who have opined on the matter. You will receive no further comments from me.

If you persist in making this personal, you'll get another infraction, and it will escalate from there if you ignore this post.

---

And I discuss with Jovialis and Palermo likewise.

I disagree with you on the fact that US is not only savior, but has also self intrest in this mater. Why leaving the NATO, only because of the money?

So really if you don't pay the 2% then it's exit?

And ok that is legitimate position, nevertheless I hope that the Nato means more than 2% of GDP...

We now see what in a new time frame with the attack of Putin is the new function of NATO. Imo the last times there was more unity than ever!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Palermo Trapani

Well I understand the US perhaps should have not gotten involve with NORD2. But as an American voter who is tired of all the neo-liberal (DEM) and neo-con (REP) foreign policy adventures where US kids get sent to fight wars abroad for what I don't know, this whole NORD2 and NATO arrangement where Germany as the 4th largest economy in the world still does not pay the NATO required 2% of GDP is a sticking point. As I noted it was Trump trying to stop the NORD2 which directly links Russian distribution terminals to German ports that can receive LNG. From an American perspective, it seems strange for the US to have 35K forces stationed in Germany, which is about 1/2 of the normal 70k stationed in Europe, Germany being the country with the most US personnel stationed in Europe, the other top countries are the UK, Italy )US Navy 6th fleet is based in Southern Italy near Naples) and Turkey. So who are these 35K US troops defending Germany from? Russia? Yet, Germany unilaterally contracts with Putin to build NORD2 so they can meet their Oil and Gas supplies as they move away from Coal and Nuclear power. I totally get the economics of it from Germany's perspective and Putin wanting to sell Oil and Gas to the European markets (4 of the 8 largest Economies in the world are in Europe, Germany 4, UK 5, France 7 and Italy 8). But in terms of NATO and military spending in terms of assets and personnel, why am I as a US tax payer paying for Germany's defense. They can afford to pay the NATO costs of keeping US forces at that level committed in Germany.

---

The 2% is a spending target for all NATO countries. They don't own 2% of the GDP to NATO, it's a recommendation. But then why would Germany spend 2% of GDP on NATO when they have the US protect them? They have a different agenda. East Germany is still not fully integrated with West Germany. Pretty poor area compared with the western part.

The reasons for stationing the 35K soldiers in Germany are multiple:
1. Pre-position US forces in case of a Russian attack on Europe
2. Protect Germany's neighbor's from Germany

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsnake49

The 2% is a spending target for all NATO countries. They don't own 2% of the GDP to NATO, it's a recommendation. But then why would Germany spend 2% of GDP on NATO when they have the US protect them? They have a different agenda. East Germany is still not fully integrated with West Germany. Pretty poor area compared with the western part.

The reasons for stationing the 35K soldiers in Germany are multiple:
1. Pre-position US forces in case of a Russian attack on Europe
2. Protect Germany's neighbor's from Germany

---

Germany’s military has become a complete joke. It can’t fulfill its role as a Nato member, let alone form the heart of a European defense force. In addition Germany depends on Russian gas because of the disappearing coal and nuclear energy( "climate protection policy") which is being replaced by Russian gas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsnake49

The 2% is a spending target for all NATO countries. They don't own 2% of the GDP to NATO, it's a recommendation. But then why would Germany spend 2% of GDP on NATO when they have the US protect them? They have a different agenda. East Germany is still not fully integrated with West Germany. Pretty poor area compared with the western part.

The reasons for stationing the 35K soldiers in Germany are multiple:
1. Pre-position US forces in case of a Russian attack on Europe
2. Protect Germany's neighbor's from Germany

---

So why can't France and the UK other NATO countries bear the brunt of defending Germany from Russia. And I understand the 2% is a recommendation, but Germany is the 4th largest economy in the World. And you precisely made my point for me. Germany given its military history in the 2 World War's in the 20th century is probably themselves not keen on militarizing too much, as you say why spend money on its own military when the US has 35K forces there. Fair enough, I am not advocating for Germany to form for the sake of argument 5 new Infantry Divisions and 5 new Armored Divisions and 2 Airborne divisions. That could cause concerns among its neighbors. However, Germany can afford to pay more for NATO defense of Germany of which the USA is incurring significant costs. And Yes I understand Germany has its own agenda as does France who think they can tell the rest of the European countries what the EU should do and sometimes they act unilaterally which impacts NATO which impacts the USA. For example, as I noted before the NORD2 was a unilateral deal between Germany and Russia and was not viewed favorably by most of the countries that border Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Northener

And I discuss with Jovialis and Palermo likewise.

I disagree with you on the fact that US is not only savior, but has also self intrest in this mater. Why leaving the NATO, only because of the money?

So really if you don't pay the 2% then it's exit?

And ok that is legitimate position, nevertheless I hope that the Nato means more than 2% of GDP...

We now see what in a new time frame with the attack of Putin is the new function of NATO. Imo the last times there was more unity than ever!

---

Northerner: I don't think Angela, Jovialis or me have advocated leaving NATO. But what pisses my off is the ripe anti-Americanism that I see in certain European countries. Yet, when people in the USA start questioning it in its current form, these same anti-American Europeans start ranting about NATO. My position is just this, every European country in NATO needs to pay what the 2014 agreement I think it was (which Obama negotiated). Furthermore, the Soviet-Union no longer exists and as an American I am glad in Post WW2 that the USA created NATO which prevented the Soviet Union pushing Westward and allowed European countries torn up by WW2 to recover. I am also glad that when I was in Rome and Sicily in 2019, I never once detected any anti-Americanism from Italians there. In fact, everyone I met (I am in my 50's) new of and remembered relatives of theirs that were and still are in the USA. Italy, along with your country the Netherlands, were among the 12 charter members of NATO and I am glad that the USA has a very good working relationship with Italy (as evidenced by the fact that Italy is among the top 4 countries where US personnel are stationed). The US Navy 6th Fleet is based in Naples allowing the US to cover the entire Mediterranean from Spain to the Levant.

So no I am not like one of those school boys who when they did not get there way, took the ball and went home and the ball game was over because that kid was the only one with the ball. So I am not for the US getting out of NATO. What I am for is a re-constituted NATO that looks at Europe as it is now. Here are the top 25 economies in the world, it seems that these European countries in this top 25 can do more to share the burden of NATO.


https://www.investopedia.com/insight...top-economies/

As for Angela's comment's you misconstrued what she said. Nobody is calling NATO crap. What people are saying is NATO will stop the Russians seems to always mean the USA will do it mostly along with the UK. Germany and France and others need to contribute, that is all I think is being said. Hungary to its credit mobilized its Military today to protect its border with Ukraine if Russia pushes that far West. Good for them. The USA, which has small contingent in Hungary asked Hungary if more USA personnel is needed there. Hungary said no and is mobilizing its own military and moving them to the east near the border with Ukraine.


https://www.reuters.com/world/europe...ry-2022-02-22/


Here was the force structure as of 10 February 2022. Hungary now is plugging the gap between Romania and Slovakia. Poland has forces. So can't some other countries commit to putting forces under a NATO command say in Slovakia?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/10/europ...cmd/index.html

My position is simply this. The USA should assist Europe here, just as many European countries sent forces to help the USA take out Al Qaeda and at least put a hurt on the Taliban until the US finally said time to go home. At the same time, I think there needs to be more European countries sending some combat troops East other than the ones that I have done so now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigsnake49

The 2% is a spending target for all NATO countries. They don't own 2% of the GDP to NATO, it's a recommendation. But then why would Germany spend 2% of GDP on NATO when they have the US protect them? They have a different agenda. East Germany is still not fully integrated with West Germany. Pretty poor area compared with the western part.

The reasons for stationing the 35K soldiers in Germany are multiple:
1. Pre-position US forces in case of a Russian attack on Europe
2. Protect Germany's neighbor's from Germany

---

So, it's perfectly ok for Germany to say, hey, sorry, but I have some internal problems on which I have to spend money so I guess I just won't fulfill my "recommended" payments and I'll let the U.S. pick up the bill for my defense, because of course they don't have any pressing internal problems they might like to address with that money.

Oh, and I guess they're adding, btw, send "your" young men and women here to fight for all of us if we're attacked.

Sometimes I can't believe the stuff that comes out of people's mouths where the U.S. is concerned, even though they seem perfectly reasonable and nice in other matters.

When do the European countries take the appropriate responsibility for their own defense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angela

So, it's perfectly ok for Germany to say, hey, sorry, but I have some internal problems on which I have to spend money so I guess I just won't fulfill my "recommended" payments and I'll let the U.S. pick up the bill for my defense, because of course they don't have any pressing internal problems they might like to address with that money.

Oh, and I guess they're adding, btw, send "your" young men and women here to fight for all of us if we're attacked.

Sometimes I can't believe the stuff that comes out of people's mouths where the U.S. is concerned, even though they seem perfectly reasonable and nice in other matters.

When do the European countries take the appropriate responsibility for their own defense?

---

Hasn't this been the attitude since WWII?