• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Future Potential Russian Invasion of NATO Members

Defense spending is just an excuse Trump will use to abandon Europe altogether.
Pay attention to how he justifies pulling US troops out of Poland (he'll have to invent some sort of lie in order to do that).
I guess I’ll believe it when I see it considering the positive interactions between the U.S. and Poland and the numerous assurances they’re not removing troops from Poland and hegseth even suggested sending more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MonaD
This is wrong, there’s a U.S. tripwire force in Estonia and Lithuania.
I apologize; you seem to be correct in that there are approx. 2000 US troops in the Baltics.

Shows what I know.

Still, that's nothing more than a tripwire. And yes, tripwires serve their purpose, but at the height of the Cold War there were approximately half a million US troops stationed in Europe - which was indeed a credible deterrent. We need a similar deployment right now if the US is serious about standing its ground. I think we both know it isn't. :)
 
I guess I’ll believe it when I see it considering the positive interactions between the U.S. and Poland and the numerous assurances they’re not removing troops from Poland and hegseth even suggested sending more.
All those statements came from people like Hegseth, Rubio, Kellogg etc. - i.e. people who are trying to guess what Trump's thought process is, but aren't actually in the loop.

Unless Trump himself confirms it, I'm calling BS on all that stuff.
 
All those statements came from people like Hegseth, Rubio, Kellogg etc. - i.e. people who are trying to guess what Trump's thought process is, but aren't actually in the loop.

Unless Trump himself confirms it, I'm calling BS on all that stuff.
I guess we’ll see how it plays out. Trump and Duda tend to get along pretty well though.
 
Literally not a single word of what you just wrote is true.

Okay, I suppose an explanation is due - Germany, France and the UK combined could not "curb stomp" the Russians in the Baltics; that's just ludicrous. Not unless they transition to a wartime economy, and that's not happening as of right now.

There are no US troops in the Baltics. There are between 10k and 20k US troops in Poland, but it's not a permanent deployment (it's a rotational arrangement), and neither Trump nor Hegseth nor Rubio seem to want to commit to their continued presence there, which clearly signals Trump wants to get them out of there ASAP. And in any case, even 20k US troops is a drop in a bucket if Russia decides to go all-in.
It is not correct that the US has no troops in the Baltics.

The region also hosts more than 2,000 American troops, with approximately 1,000 in Lithuania and 600 each in Estonia and Latvia. The Baltic states also host NATO deployments from Britain, Canada, and Germany.

Trump himself recently said Washington stays committed to Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania but repeated his call for NATO to step up defense spending.

Those are not criticisms or threats of not defending the Baltics, Poland, Romania, or Finland.

There are 4000 US troops in Romania an airbase and port facilities to support US Black Sea fleet
With recent commitments by Trump admin spokesman to increase its size and presence.


According to polish president after his visit in late feb with Trump. He said Trump has assured him their will be no reduced US presence in Poland.
There is even talk of renaming a base in Poland to fort Trump.

I will say that in my personal opinion, America has entered the game very strongly when it comes to ending the war in Ukraine. I know President Donald Trump, I know that he is an extremely decisive man and when he acts, he acts in a very determined and usually effective way,” Duda said.There are no concerns that the U.S. would reduce the level of its presence in our country, that the U.S. would in any way withdraw from its responsibility or co-responsibility for the security of this part of Europe,” Duda told reporters in Warsaw after a meeting with Gen. Keith Kellogg, the U.S. special envoy for Ukraine and Russia. “On the contrary, I hope that thanks to the efforts that President Trump is currently making, the war in Ukraine will end.”


Donald Trump is considering removing US troops from Germany and redeploying them to Eastern Europe, it has been reported.
That is Eastern Europe not just Hungary


So there are no talks of draw downs or non commitments to nato nations on the eastern flank. Repositioning troops out of Central Europe Actually moves American forces “closer” to NATO’s flank bordering Russia is not abandoning NATO. It is telling those that haven’t met their commitments that they themselves have abandoning NATO by their ownlack of commitment to the alliance and that pisses them off. But too bad, money talks BS walks.

All sourced positions statements, deployments, and understandings of Eastern European leaders.

So this pandering to fear that the US is abandoning NATO is only supported by unsupported assertions to deflect from the failings and indecisiveness of nato members who are not as everyone admits capable of meeting their own security commitments to nato.
 
It is a question of differing responses. Calculating and timid in appearance, or forceful and unpredictable.

I continue to maintain if you’re going to commit to war or supporting an ally’s prosecution of a war. You must also be committed to entering that war to win and the cost it entails.
That's one strategy. I would counter with the suggestion that if the US/NATO had entered into the Ukraine/Russian war full-force immediately after the invasion began, nuclear weapons would have been used. It would have started with a couple of small tactical nukes over Ukraine, but would have quickly escalated to a more widespread exchange. No telling how far it would have gone, but I guarantee you we would be living in an entirely different world had your strategy been used in Ukraine.

I fully support your strategy if you are going to war against a country without nuclear weapons. But countries with nuclear arsenals require a different approach if you don't want entire cities wiped off the map.
 
OK, I may have been sarcastic (kind of my thing nowadays), and you seem to be quite patient with me, so I suppose I should reciprocate. I'll keep it short, though - a proper reply to your statements would require me to write a literal book, and I don't feel like doing that right now, so here's a short executive summary:
  • If I understand you correctly, you appear to believe NATO still exists. I disagree. In my opinion Trump will never honor Article 5 if Russia attacks a NATO member state. Your opinion may differ, but in that case we'll have to agree to disagree.
  • Fighters, tanks and IFVs are useful, but - as the old saying goes - quantity has a quality all its own, and Russia currently dwarfs the Western European countries with regard to the amount of armor and airpower it can wield in a Baltic theater of war. Accordingly, Germany, France and the UK would be at a severe disadvantage when it comes to confronting Russia in that specific area. With US involvement Russia could indeed be defeated, but the US isn't coming (see above).
  • Nuclear deterrence - and France's role therein - is a fiendishly complicated subject, and I really don't have time to explain right now, but suffice it to say no one expects France to sacrifice Paris in order to save Narva. Bottom line: French nukes won't stop Russia from invading.
HTH.
A very well-stated argument, thank you.

I would agree that the NATO we grew up with does not exist any longer. I don't know if Trump would honor article 5 against Russia or not, but I do know all the other remaining NATO states would honor Article 5 and we would have the third major military conflict in Europe in a little over a century, possibly with nuclear weapons involved.

Other countries outside of NATO might also join in to support Europe.

And then there's the wildcard of all the US military bases, hardware, and troops in Europe. If the US reneges on Article 5 but still maintains a military presence in Europe, and a US base gets taken out by a Russian nuke, don't you think every American would be calling for blood? Trump would almost have no choice but to respond in that scenario.

You make some valid points, but a full-scale Russian invasion of Europe occurs, that situation is going to be so fluid that it will be impossible to predict what's going to happen. We can make some educated guesses, and yours might be correct, but there are too many other possible ways it could go.
 
I don't know if Trump would honor article 5 against Russia or not
It's a matter of law. He doesn't have a choice. There's a difference between bluster and what he really will do. The White House has come out and said they would honour the alliance.
 
That's one strategy. I would counter with the suggestion that if the US/NATO had entered into the Ukraine/Russian war full-force immediately after the invasion began, nuclear weapons would have been used. It would have started with a couple of small tactical nukes over Ukraine, but would have quickly escalated to a more widespread exchange. No telling how far it would have gone, but I guarantee you we would be living in an entirely different world had your strategy been used in Ukraine.

I fully support your strategy if you are going to war against a country without nuclear weapons. But countries with nuclear arsenals require a different approach if you don't want entire cities wiped off the map.
Its true there was always that risk. And yet we’re still helping a nation with probably as much technology as they can utilize and Russia has still stood against it and ground it to a stalemate. So now where are we? What additional weapons can we give to Ukraine to break this impasse?
Entering now is even more dangerous I. Someways as far as nukes are concerned.
Both sides are hyper committed to the war and backing down is probably more difficult than early on.

Care would have had to be given in how we approached aiding Ukraine directly.
Air cap early on, nato controled artillery, special forces sappers and recon units.

We all know that depending on the war and nations involved perceptions of the war on both sides is virtually as important as the armies they can field. Especially today.
It’s becoming a Vietnam with mushroom clouds on the horizon.
So roll in with specialized units and brigades to focus and concentrate damage to strategic locations.

And that raises the whole ugly problem of command and control arguments and cooperation. Would any of the four large nato members submit their troops to another’s control in a war in Ukraine.

So we try and negotiate it. Hope those mushroom clouds do not grow on the horizon and we keep sending weapons to Ukraine till they can no longer fight. And be assured their is always point in time that no nation can go on any further when hope remains to distant. The Ukrainians are brave beyond question but there are always limits.

And what will the hawks in the west be demanding if Ukraine collapses next fall internally.
 
It's a matter of law. He doesn't have a choice. There's a difference between bluster and what he really will do. The White House has come out and said they would honour the alliance.
Well as the position statements have been made clear there is no intention to not honor article five incidents of nations not meeting spending commitments. Given that all of the nations that now currently boarder Russia or Belarus are meeting their defense spending commitments. Thus inspite of what is reported the US would be reacting to an article five incident in any of the eastern flank nato member states. The likely hood that Russia would launch ballistic missile attacks against those nations in the interior of nato are slim. Why to what end?

So how is this not a moot point in application.

More should be done in the Baltics, but that onus is on all the Western European nations as well not just the US. Talks are being made to move a major portion of US troops in Germany east. This isn’t abandonment of nato it is repositioning of troops and weapons closer to the boarder with Russia. It common sense despite the political uproar.
 
Tusk seems to believe this war can only be ended by unending weapons deliveries to Ukraine. They to won’t send troops to Ukraine.
No one is saying to continue the war forever, but no one is saying to completely and utterly capitulate to Putin either.

Not sure why many GOP officials think it's either forever-war/WWIII or totally apease Putin to end it. That's not reality nor the options to be choose.
 
No one is saying to continue the war forever, but no one is saying to completely and utterly capitulate to Putin either.

Not sure why many GOP officials think it's either forever-war/WWIII or totally apease Putin to end it. That's not reality nor the options to be choose.
Im not saying capitulate nor has contrary to what is claimed has Trump capitulated either.

Are we all ignoring that peace negotiations between nations at war are delicate process that take time involve give and take and private communications and public statements.

But believe what makes you happy
 
It's a matter of law. He doesn't have a choice. There's a difference between bluster and what he really will do. The White House has come out and said they would honour the alliance.
This argument is based on the premise that Trump intends to follow the law no matter what. I'm gonna harp on what I've said many times before: most Americans are completely mentally unprepared for a dictatorial power grab because it's never happened in your country. It's like the natives and the flu virus - can't fight off something you've never experienced. More specifically, your (collective "your") blind spot is believing that the law will somehow always prevail.

As for NATO, statements saying that Trump would honor the alliance came from Rubio, Kellogg and (allegedly in private conversations) Hegseth. Never from Trump. And none of those people know what Trump really agreed on with Putin. Pays to remember that this is not a normal administration because there is no government by consensus. What you have is one man playing it by ear, and a bunch of minions frantically trying to guess what the Grand Plan is - even though there probably isn't one at all.

Hell, if there's a single person who might know where this runaway train is headed, it's probably JD: of all the people in Trump's inner circle this guy is an exception in that he is not clinically insane - merely evil. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that if, in the coming years, Trump ends up having an unfortunate accident and falling down the stairs, it'll turn out JD was following closely behind. 😁
 
Back
Top Bottom