• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

The end of NATO?

Randy Daytona said:
Again
Click to expand...
We should do it because it is in our interest to do it.

Why should we depend on someone else to do something that is in our interest to ensure gets done? Russia’s stupid move gave us a grand opportunity.

You don’t think diminishing Russia’s threat will put us in a better position against China?
 
sevenhelmet said:
If the goal is to not ever be called a hyprocrite by the American people, I have some bad news…

We can make tough budget choices AND defend choices like keeping Ukraine in the fight. I’m just concerned this administration doesn’t want to.
Click to expand...
The American people don't want to.

The goal is to win elections.

Do you think a candidate who runs on a platform of expanding support for Ukraine would win in 2028?

Keep in mind the key issue will be the social security fund going broke.

(yes, I understand these are different pots but 200,000,000 voters don't)
 
taxi1 said:
Did the Republicans have a platform in 2024?
Click to expand...
Project 2025 was a platform, I suppose.

On the Ukraine thing, I don’t think it needs to be the headline issue, but I do think it’s important.

But what I think is pretty irrelevant to modern politics. I’m one of those unaffiliated moderates. Yuck.
 
taxi1 said:
We should do it because it is in our interest to do it.

Why should we depend on someone else to do something that is in our interest to ensure gets done? Russia’s stupid move gave us a grand opportunity.

You don’t think diminishing Russia’s threat will put us in a better position against China?
Click to expand...
It is not wise for Oceania to simultaneously fight EurAsia and EastAsia. The absolute last thing you want is to tightly bind the unlimited natural resources of Russia to the massive industrial capacity of China (congratulations free traders).

We have limited resources. Those resources need to be focused on a rival for which Europe is of nearly zero help.

Again, why can’t 500 million Europeans with 20x the GDP of Russia handle the Ukraine conflict, especially showing how ineffective the Red Army is?
 
GroundPounder said:
Why would they want to, if they can count on us to do it?
Click to expand...
That’s the Republican party line. But I think Europe has created very structural issues that make that pivot extremely difficult. It’s certainly a problem, but Russia advances while we wait for clay-footed Europe to solve it. Meanwhile, we’re in a position to 10x our investment against Russia now.

Speed matters.
 
sevenhelmet said:
That’s the Republican party line. But I think Europe has created very structural issues that make that pivot extremely difficult. It’s certainly a problem, but Russia advances while we wait for clay-footed Europe to solve it. Meanwhile, we’re in a position to 10x our investment against Russia now.

Speed matters.
Click to expand...
That is the American taxpayer line.

How fast and far has Russia advanced in 4 years?

I have no idea why you are prioritizing Russia and not concerned with China, which is an exponentially greater concern.
 
Randy Daytona said:
That is the American taxpayer line.

How fast and far has Russia advanced in 4 years?

I have no idea why you are prioritizing Russia and not concerned with China, which is an exponentially greater concern.
Click to expand...
Again, my opinions are largely irrelevant in today’s America, as you have pointed out. However, it is my observation that this administration isn’t particularly focused on containing China either.

Russia has put itself in a strategically weak position, and we should capitalize on that. They haven’t advanced in four years because of it. I don’t think it’s necessarily a zero-sum game versus a China containment focus- the two goals dovetail rather nicely- more military against Russia, more economic and diplomatic against China.

I don’t expect anyone to agree, of course. Just my quaint opinion.
 
Randy Daytona said:
Again, Why can’t 500 million Europeans with 20x the GDP of Russia do that?

Which is a bigger threat: the Russian Army which has made less than a snail’s pace progress over 4 years against Ukraine, or China’s Navy with 200x the shipbuilding capacity?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. If they're unable or unwilling, then it falls on us. While I advocate for additional European capacity to counter the threats in their own backyard, it will always be a collective effort with the US in the lead. Welcome to being a superpower. I cannot believe we're having this discussion. Some of you have lost the plot completely.

I find it interesting that you think the Europeans should take the lead in their backyard while simultaneously suggesting that the US should be focusing on the western pacific. By your own standard, shouldn't Asian countries be taking the lead there as well?
 
Randy Daytona said:
I have no idea why you are prioritizing Russia and not concerned with China, which is an exponentially greater concern.
Click to expand...
In what world does Russia not provide material support to China, if not outright military support, in the event of a conflict between the United States and China. Any supposedly chinese-focused strategy that does not address the certainty that it will call on Russia, Iran, and other regionally aligned powers to disrupt the ability of US forces to focus on the pacific is unserious. Crippling Russia militarily and economically now is prioritizing a future conflict with China in one of the best ways we can without directly initiating that conflict.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top