• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

U.S. tanks roll into Germany to protect against potential Russian invasion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
mnz said:
Would only be the same thing if, let's say, Mexico felt so threatened by a US invasion that it would desperately enter a military alliance with Russia to build up its military.
But they don't feel like they need to do that, Russia's neighbours do. Guess why that is.
Click to expand...

The United States shares borders with a grand total of 2 countries, it's a non comparison.
 
kayzai said:
So has the USA. From Iraq to Syria.

Has Russia being moving its troops closer to the USA boarder? Are there Russian tanks even on the American Continents?
Click to expand...

First off what the hell are you talking about? When has the US invaded Syria? In fact the whole reason Syria sucks right now is because the US DIDN'T intervene in time.

And stop deflecting with "is Russia moving closer to the US border". Russia HAS been moving its troops closer to its neighbors, some of whom are part of NATO.

Should the US just let Russia take the Baltic states? Yes or No?
 
A small force sure, but it gives us enough for control which means Russia will have to place twice as much influence to regain it. I just don't think they have the ops to get it done, and they're barred from coup attempts in Europe after the recent failure in Turkey. Let's see how this plays out...
 
GTP_Daverytimes said:
The United States shares borders with a grand total of 2 countries, it's a non comparison.
Click to expand...
The comparison is that Russia's neighbours desperately want to join NATO because they are afraid of an invasion and that's just not the case for the US or barely any other country like that poster tried to compare.
 
I would hope now everyone recognizes false equivalencies is the bread and butter tool for people who know they're wrong and the easiest way to spot a shitty argument.
 
We the Netherlands can't help the USA with a tank battle. I think we have zero or maybe 1 tank :')
But besides that, don't think anything is going to happen lol
 
You know I read a little about Crimea, and I read it was pre USSR a part of Russia and also that public sentient in the region did strongly support accession to Russia

So I'm not sure we can act as is the annexation of Crimea is a precursor to anything more

It would have been nice if a people could self determine through democratic means though
 
poppedcollar69 said:
You know I read a little about Crimea, and I read it was pre USSR a part of Russia and also that public sentient in the region did strongly support accession to Russia

So I'm not sure we can act as is the annexation of Crimea is a precursor to anything more

It would have been nice if a people could self determine through democratic means though
Click to expand...

Read a little further back. It was always ethnically Ukranian, then USSR forced communism resulted in massive hunger and death in Ukraine. Ukrainians were deported from Ukraine to Russia to stop any sort of rebellious or nationalistic ideas.

Crimea has lots of lovely resources, so the USSR moved a bunch of ethnically Russian people into the Crimea (and much of Ukraine) and now basically use it as an excuse for those places belonging to them. "It's all Russians there! We just want to bring them back into the fold." It's all Russians because they killed off everyone else.
 
Greddleok said:
Read a little further back. It was always ethnically Ukranian, then USSR forced communism resulted in massive hunger and death in Ukraine. Ukrainians were deported from Ukraine to Russia to stop any sort of rebellious or nationalistic ideas.

Crimea has lots of lovely resources, so the USSR moved a bunch of ethnically Russian people into the Crimea (and much of Ukraine) and now basically use it as an excuse for those places belonging to them. "It's all Russians there! We just want to bring them back into the fold." It's all Russians because they killed off everyone else.
Click to expand...
This doesn't sound correct at all, any sources?
 
Nivash said:
Russia would never go to to war of they're sure that NATO will respond all-out. It would mean the literal end of of the world. They could absolutely go to war if they think that the NATO members aren't prepared to respond, however. Because really, who's prepared to risk New York, London and Paris over Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius?

Deployments and excersises like this are designed specifically to point out that NATO very much is willing to take that risk. It signals resolve both to the eastern NATO members and to Russia. Deploying an entire brigade is a strong deterrence not because of their fighting capacity but because the US couldn't sit back after losing 3500 men. They'd have to respond.

If Russia would manage to invade a NATO member and have NATO fold, NATO would dissolve. Russia would effectively become the dominant power in eastern Europe again overnight. Don't you think that dream is incredibly tempting to them? With a Europe wracked with infighting over basically everything right now and a US president elect with an isolationist bend, the scenario looks more plausible to Russia than it has in a very, very long time.

It's more important than ever to show that NATO means business because if it doesn't, the destabilisation that would bring could easily throw Europe into war again.
Click to expand...

Let's go a deeper level.

I think that other than keep a vital space outside the borders any military projection into the soft europe doesn't make any sense from any point of view.
Economically a conquered Europe is just useless, we have nothing, we are just a huge market that buys stuffs with the money we make through our know how.
A conquest war would destroy everything that makes the Europe worth.
Way more cheap and useful is to project power through friendly or puppet administrations, this is done unconditionally from west to east by any country that can do it.

Russia reacted with violence when their sphere of power was going to suffer a huge blow, keep in mind i could not care less about morality or rights in this context I'm just talking about power projections, Georgia, Ucrania and Crimea was Russia trying to keep the status quo, losing any of those would mean surrender to west powers, this was done on a reactive stance to a bad, for them, prospect.
This seems a clear stance of Russia in Europe, status quo, reactive, defensive and make sense for how and what Europe is for Russian interests and that is in line with their policy of the last 30 years.

We have seen a totally different Russia in Syria, there happened something that changed an equilibrium that lasted till the ww2, that was so unexpected due to the Russian foreign power projection of the last 25 years, that was able to succeed.

But, also in Syria there was a totally different strategic interest and a direct conflict was not going to destroy it and the possible gains were world changing.
Also in Syria they acted in a legal environment.

So I think that whatever western media may say about Russian invasion, I think that the first interest of Russia is not to invade Europe and btw our continent is already self destructing and losing power by itself and by doing so naturally going to fall in the Russian power sphere in the next 10, 15 years if some more competent ruler will not rise to stop our decline.

So, I still think that's just headlines hunting.
 
There are a billion people in Europe and they have strong economies to fund a strong defense, they can and should defend themselves without US assistance.
 
Greddleok said:
Read a little further back. It was always ethnically Ukranian, then USSR forced communism resulted in massive hunger and death in Ukraine. Ukrainians were deported from Ukraine to Russia to stop any sort of rebellious or nationalistic ideas.

Crimea has lots of lovely resources, so the USSR moved a bunch of ethnically Russian people into the Crimea (and much of Ukraine) and now basically use it as an excuse for those places belonging to them. "It's all Russians there! We just want to bring them back into the fold." It's all Russians because they killed off everyone else.
Click to expand...

Nah, that can't be right. It was previously inhabited by mostly (I figure) Crimean Tartars. Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire way back when. Under the USSR, most Tartars were deported. Then at some point, Crimea was made part of Ukraine, which it has never really been before. It stayed that way after Ukraine became independent.

Of course this would never warrant to forcibly take it back, unless you take your cues from a certain somebody invading countries in the late 30s or rather that this kind of policy was somehow acceptable to you in this day and age.
 
Why Germany though? I mean, I know this is ultimately more symbolic but shouldn't the US be sending more military aid into the Baltic States, places like Estonia, where the threat of a Russian invasion is significantly more real.
 
Zereta said:
Why Germany though? I mean, I know this is ultimately more symbolic but shouldn't the US be sending more military aid into the Baltic States, places like Estonia, where the threat of a Russian invasion is significantly more real.
Click to expand...
Read more than the title.
 
Greddleok said:
Read a little further back. It was always ethnically Ukranian, then USSR forced communism resulted in massive hunger and death in Ukraine. Ukrainians were deported from Ukraine to Russia to stop any sort of rebellious or nationalistic ideas.

Crimea has lots of lovely resources, so the USSR moved a bunch of ethnically Russian people into the Crimea (and much of Ukraine) and now basically use it as an excuse for those places belonging to them. "It's all Russians there! We just want to bring them back into the fold." It's all Russians because they killed off everyone else.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be alarmist, but Germany used that exact same idea to invade Poland. Hitler wanted to annex the ethnic German portion of Western Poland under the excuse that it was rightfully part of Germany. There are too many similarities between Danzig (in Poland) and Crimea to ignore.
 
hoola said:
There are a billion people in Europe and they have strong economies to fund a strong defense, they can and should defend themselves without US assistance.
Click to expand...
A stable and peaceful Europe is very useful for the US. And most of Europe is part of NATO and also part of these operations. There are German, English, Dutch and tons of other nationalities in the Baltics for example because they are all part of NATO.
 
Ultryx said:
Jesus. It's already happening. I'm not fucking getting drafted.
Click to expand...

lil-wayne-laughing.gif
 
A lot of people in here are really fooling themselves if they think that Putin won't seriously consider invading one of the Baltic members of NATO. If the Trump administration gives him assurances that the US won't interfere it will happen. Putin will make a calculated risk that the UK, France, and Germany won't respond and it will pay off because they won't. NATO will then collapse and Western Europe will scramble to assemble a new alliance with counties in Eastern Europe like Poland going all in to get nuclear weapons.

Europe isn't in position both politically or militarily to stand up to Russian aggression without the help of the US. And that isn't a switch you can just flip on a whim. I think the German leadeships understands this fortunately but it's going to take time for them to rally the resources they need.
 
Sorc3r3r said:
Let's go a deeper level.

I think that other than keep a vital space outside the borders any military projection into the soft europe doesn't make any sense from any point of view.
Economically a conquered Europe is just useless, we have nothing, we are just a huge market that buys stuffs with the money we make through our know how.
A conquest war would destroy everything that makes the Europe worth.
Way more cheap and useful is to project power through friendly or puppet administrations, this is done unconditionally from west to east by any country that can do it.

Russia reacted with violence when their sphere of power was going to suffer a huge blow, keep in mind i could not care less about morality or rights in this context I'm just talking about power projections, Georgia, Ucrania and Crimea was Russia trying to keep the status quo, losing any of those would mean surrender to west powers, this was done on a reactive stance to a bad, for them, prospect.
This seems a clear stance of Russia in Europe, status quo, reactive, defensive and make sense for how and what Europe is for Russian interests and that is in line with their policy of the last 30 years.

We have seen a totally different Russia in Syria, there happened something that changed an equilibrium that lasted till the ww2, that was so unexpected due to the Russian foreign power projection of the last 25 years, that was able to succeed.

But, also in Syria there was a totally different strategic interest and a direct conflict was not going to destroy it and the possible gains were world changing.
Also in Syria they acted in a legal environment.

So I think that whatever western media may say about Russian invasion, I think that the first interest of Russia is not to invade Europe and btw our continent is already self destructing and losing power by itself and by doing so naturally going to fall in the Russian power sphere in the next 10, 15 years if some more competent ruler will not rise to stop our decline.

So, I still think that's just headlines hunting.
Click to expand...

I think we're on the same page actually. I'm not arguing that a Russian attack would move beyond the Baltic states, because it wouldn't have to. If the attack is successful and NATO folds, NATO and the EU both collapse. Europe will be too fractured to do anything but adapt to a Russian-dominated Eastern Europe and in the medium term, a Russian dominated Europe and a neutered United States. Except it could happen virtually overnight and with no risk of us actually getting our shit together down the line.

Russia doesn't have the luxury of time. They have funnelled a lot of resources into their military for now, but they're all but guaranteed to decline if the current status quo persists. They can't compete in the global market and their fossil fuels are depreciating in relative value by the day. They need vassals and a sphere of interest to bully to to turn it around, but the window for that is closing, fast. They know it. That's why they're dangerous.

I still have some hope that us Europeans will swing back in some fashion even though I admit, things do look bleak. But for that to even be possible, NATO and the EU need to be preserved at almost any cost. Lose them and our future goes with them.
 
LegendofJoe said:
A lot of people in here are really fooling themselves if they think that Putin won't seriously consider invading one of the Baltic members of NATO. If the Trump administration gives him assurances that the US won't interfere it will happen. Putin will make a calculated risk that the UK, France, and Germany won't respond and it will pay off because they won't.
Click to expand...
As a NATO member, wouldn't the USA be legally forced to intervene? I mean they ratified the treaty (passed into law by Congress) in 1949.
 
Mivey said:
As a NATO member, wouldn't the USA be legally forced to intervene? I mean they ratified the treaty in 1949.
Click to expand...
Yes and without a reaction it would be the end of NATO. Article 5 is the whole point of the alliance.
 
I wonder if this is one of those things Obama is doing to make it harder for Trump. Trump can't just recall all this without looking like a shill, but being Putin's dick stroker it's the first thing he'll want to do.
 
Ultryx said:
Jesus. It's already happening. I'm not fucking getting drafted.
Click to expand...

LMAO. What the hell?

How old are you? I can only guess extremely young to not know about the US and military drafting. This got a laugh out of me.
 
mnz said:
Yes and without a reaction it would be the end of NATO. Article 5 is the whole point of the alliance.
Click to expand...
And this is what our President-elect had to say about this topic in July:

When Donald J. Trump was asked on Wednesday whether, if elected president, he would defend the Baltic nations against a hypothetical Russian attack, his answer was, essentially: It depends.

“Have they fulfilled their obligations to us?” he asked. “If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes.”

And if not? “Well, I’m not saying if not,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us.”
Click to expand...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/world/europe/donald-trump-nato-baltics-interpreter.html
 
Nivash said:
I think we're on the same page actually. I'm not arguing that a Russian attack would move beyond the Baltic states, because it wouldn't have to. If the attack is successful and NATO folds, NATO and the EU both collapse. Europe will be too fractured to do anything but adapt to a Russian-dominated Eastern Europe and in the medium term, a Russian dominated Europe and a neutered United States. Except it could happen virtually overnight and with no risk of us actually getting our shit together down the line.

Russia doesn't have the luxury of time. They have funnelled a lot of resources into their military for now, but they're all but guaranteed to decline if the current status quo persists. They can't compete in the global market and their fossil fuels are depreciating in relative value by the day. They need vassals and a sphere of interest to bully to to turn it around, but the window for that is closing, fast. They know it. That's why they're dangerous.

I still have some hope that us Europeans will swing back in some fashion even though I admit, things do look bleak. But for that to even be possible, NATO and the EU need to be preserved at almost any cost. Lose them and our future goes with them.
Click to expand...

That's it your scared the shit out of me.

Seriously if Europe gets weaker things look bleak.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Rob & Michele Reiner stabbed to death in home invasion
2 3 4 5
227
2K
Aesius replied
U.S. President to direct Secretary of War to idendtify and release government files relating to Alien and ET life, UAP and UFOs
2 3 4
181
2K
DreamcastSkies replied
  • Poll
Gartner strongly advises against using AI Browsers
News 
8
471
willothedog replied
I used the "Comet" AI browser to argue against myself.... we both lost.
10
430
jason10mm replied
NASA briefing on potential signs of simple life on Mars
20
686
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Top Bottom