The NATO question

So if Russia loses, even if they win, their capacity to act in an offensive manner is going to be incredibly diminished for the next 10-15 years (just a guess made by a tired Australian) whilst supplies, bodies and will to fight replenish slowly.

On the other side of the curtain, most large NATO countries (especially the USA, UK, Canada and Australia 😀 ) have embraced the small professional standing force but as of recently they have had major issues in recruitment quotas (for example the CAF and ADF are a couple tens of thousands short).

Thus, with both Russia and broadly speaking the West's ability to act in offensive ways so reduced, I have a few questions.

1) What is the purpose of NATO after? Why would the then far-superior combined force of Europe stick together?

2) If NATO were to disband, would it create the type of environment for those with large standing forces such as Poland or France would have no real pushback against aggressively acting towards a neighboring state other than UN stuff?

3) How long would it take for continental Europe to return to traditional large standing forces instead of relying on the heavy NATO patchworks (e.g Bundeswehr finally needing to become useful rather than just banking on US soldiers to do all the work for them)?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    just realised an error on my part immediately lol, Australia is a NATO ally not a member

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1 to be nato
    2 no
    3 see 2

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russias threat comes from its size and abundant natural resources - even if it embarrassed itself in Ukraine it does not mean that its not a threat any more (it still could defeat all European countries one on one)
    - Poland alone would have harder time defending itself than Ukraine - Donbas insurgency gave Ukraine 8 years to prepare for Russian invasion - hundreds of thousands conscripts were trained and got some experience
    - Poland has ageing conscript army and small volunteer one - professional army is not too big either - plus its mechanized high mobility army - mostly tank and mechanized divisions while defence relies on volunteers.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so even at its weakest it is still a threat to such a degree that almost the entirety of Europe collectively has to always be poised against it or is it more in line with a pseudo-extortion thing as in "make Russia look like a big threat publicly then use that as leverage for their natural resources"?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Europe has very small standing armies - it relied on US for defence from perceived Russian threat.
        Now that Russian army was brutally demoted from "second in the world" to "we will noook you if you dare to defend yourself" it does not mean its not threat any more - it will still roll over smaller countries as it did in the past(Georgia, Chechnya) or ones not prepared for it (as In Ukraine in 2014)

        Russia also relies heavily on promoting prorusian politicians in Europe - you can never be certain that next govt in nearly any Euro country wont be compromised by Russian backers - then they will drag their feet, or simply refuse to help when in power.

        so smaller countries close to Russia need NATO or other collective defence treaty - and especially one that cannot be compromised by politicians having ties with Russia.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1) What is the purpose of NATO after? Why would the then far-superior combined force of Europe stick together?
    You don't need a principal enemy to have a strong defensive bond. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure after all, be strong for when a threat emerges instead of scrambling later. As far as I am concerned all of the democracy club should band together moving forward, half measures created this Ukraine situation.
    >2) If NATO were to disband, would it create the type of environment for those with large standing forces such as Poland or France would have no real pushback against aggressively acting towards a neighboring state other than UN stuff?
    Probably but things are relatively stable. I don't see things going down but NATO is a stabilizing force, that is part of why it should not go. Even the concept of a team creates camaraderie, the EU does that too.
    >3) How long would it take for continental Europe to return to traditional large standing forces instead of relying on the heavy NATO patchworks (e.g Bundeswehr finally needing to become useful rather than just banking on US soldiers to do all the work for them)?
    Depends... Europe has shown to take a lax approach in peace time and we can only hope they learn their lesson now. I think a post Russian threat, post NATO Europe would be stable enough for them to relax and then scramble for guns at the first sign of a problem. Fact is the only way to keep peoples hands out of the military cookie jar is to either make ironclad rules about readiness or have people who can see beyond what is currently in their sight.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, another concern I have is US sustainability in foreign intervention. People in the US in a lot of areas eat like shit, live like shit and don't have the same luxuries as their cousins across the pond, yet they foot a lot of the bill for NATO in terms of actual force. Of course the USA itself can afford it but my concern is more can Americans keep affording this? They give all this whilst in West Europe in particular they are able to have things like higher quality free/cheap education to a tertiary standard and government healthcare systems. How important is the USA really as the lynchpin of NATO?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Idiot detected. Containment works, the US is rich enough not to care about a few dollars most of which are internally recycled, and that's why the USSR is gone.

        Russia is indirectly (and sometimes directly) responsible for nearly every US casualty since WWII, and worse, they concern troll my precious PrepHole with shitskins like yourself.

        Wars are not why education is neglected. Local school boards are. Health care is likewise a separate issue because the population are too ignorant to run a democratic republic and have been brainwashed that all regulations and standards are bad.

        Russian subversion is why the West has an anti-gun Left. Kill the vatniks and their thirdie jeetfilth and the problem will be mitigated.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Russian subversion is why the West has an anti-gun Left.

          you forgot:

          >trannies, lgb and the general gayization of young people
          >blm/antifa
          >the whole woke crowd
          >mass shootings
          >feminism
          >incels
          >magatards and other contrarians
          >garden gnomes

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >us being gays is le russia's fault!!!1
            extremely pathetic, and also wrong. do you know who controls the media in America? not the Russians

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            dont forget that they also puppet some of the eco loonies and 5th column parties etc (Die Linke,AFD in Germany).good thing that their gas blackmail plan blew up in their faces.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Unironically true. It all originated with KGB subversion in universities and politics. There's not a green party in Europe that doesn't have direct ties to the KGB.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          yes the US is rich enough to not care about a few more dollars but how much can the average citizen endure? Your southern border is letting in more Mexicans with a different culture, language and genetic makeup with little to no skills and many bringing the problems of Mexico to your doorstep in greater numbers than any army Russia could send. There isn't enough to maintain a solid border enforcement policy but there is enough to pump distant nations with cutting edge equipment and manpower. It takes a lot to make people fight, by-in-large in the US a lot of the fighting is done by regular people, the "generation kill" mentality is over, when they are presented with an option; why would they willingly risk their lives to enforce a status quo that doesn't uphold their interests or ideals?

          Containment as a policy has had a lot of failures as well such as basically forcing Czechoslovakia to the other side of the iron curtain.

          Why does the blame for all the domestic shortcomings of the "first world" America fall onto some "irrelevant third world shithole" a world away?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The US spends more on medical care than European nations. US military spending is not competing with domestic needs, and the US could fund a permanent higher standard of living for much of its poor if it made a concerted effort for a 20 - 30 year period.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The only way for a permanent higher standard of living in the USA is to shut down mass-immigration and return illegals. Full stop.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > US military spending is not competing with domestic needs
          Solid, thanks for answering 🙂

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nato is unlikely to disband anytime soon mostly because the EU policies to mediate controversies between sovereign states using sovranational institutions has proven successful.
    The reason Ukraine is having such an easy time in this war is because the west is united in its support meanwhile China and India are plagued by constant infighting

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The domestic politics of Europe seem fairly turbulent at times, politicians like Meloni up in arms of the heavy role France plays in Euro geopolitics and the various ideological movements on top of the high tensions due to things like migrations (mostly speaking within the sense of Scandinavia as I always tend to hear from Swedes their recluse hatred of the immigrants there). Do you think a strong enough national force would shatter the fragile peace in Europe or is it more solid than I am interpreting it to be?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No matter how much they bark at each other, the reality is that they would never become top dog from breaking away while America and the rest of NATO stay unified. There is no chance for solitary European nations to become superpowers any more, but they are strong and wealthy as a collective. Modern leaders are smart enough to know this, so even though they bicker, they will present a unified response to any real geopolitical problems, such as an aggressive Russia. If we had a century of uninterrupted peace with no major challenges to the USA and NATO, then maybe it would fall apart, but that's a VERY big "if"

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, even if Russia fucking broke apart you'd have the follow-up issue of
          >Russia's imminent refugee wave/warring states period that the EU/NATO has to clean up
          >China's foreign pressure
          NATO has plenty of reason to stay, though it's objectives and structure might change up depending on where things go.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >What is the purpose of NATO without threat from russia?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The US has already spread itself around Asia on almost every side, besides Germany is a massive partner with China now and similarly Canada and New Zealand are very permissive of letting the Chinese exert their own authority within their borders.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1. to host american troops when we decide to have another forever war across the world
    2. france has nukes and europe could just pull its own weight with regards to self-defense
    3. depends on how urgent it is

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1) What is the purpose of NATO after? Why would the then far-superior combined force of Europe stick together?

    The purpose of NATO doesn't change. You fell for the midwit trap that NATO is just about Russia.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      so what is it about? Initially the Brussels pact from which it spawned was about reassuring France about letting Germany exist post-WW2 and gradually it did shape into a West vs East ordeal. But beyond Cold War "imperialism" (I hate using the word too but I can't think of how else to describe the aggressive expansion of influence into other nations by another) what is the reason for a united front against a non-existent threat?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        1) A Moroccan dictatorship decides to do an Argentinian Junta and invaded the Spanish enclaves on African soil and a massacre begins.
        2) South Africa falls into chaos. Someone needs to rescue 150 slovenian citizens who are there on holiday being held hostage.
        3) Sri Lanka decides to seize a Greek flagged vessel in international waters off its coast to get fuel supplies.

        NATO means you don't need to spend a huge amount on defense while still being safe, Euro nations aren't invincible against other nations in the modern world unless they work together.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          ah okay yeah that makes sense, it still seems a bit like overkill but I see what you mean. So it is a universal sharing of the burden involving all European interests.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >so what is it about?
        Yeah, what could a defensive military alliance be about? The world wonders

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    NATO does not need to have an enemy to be justified as a mutual defence pact and justification for each of its members to not have to keep standing army against arbitrary political turbulences.
    And unless Russia gets regime changed and humbled like Germany did, it will *definitely* continue to be a problem for all civilization and I'm counting entire world in this, not just the potable tapwater community.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1. The whole purpose of NATO is so that you don't need to field a massive standing army, but instead dombine it with your allies.
    >far-superior combined force of Europe stick together
    The fuck are you smoking, Europe is nothing militarily without the States. They couldn't even defeat Libya by themselves.

    2. Depends on too many factors. My guess is it would eventually lead to nuclear proliferation instead of huge standing armies.

    3. Again, hard to know. Poland is already trying to enlarge its' standing army, while the Germans really aren't feeling the heat yet.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >The fuck are you smoking, Europe is nothing militarily without the States. They couldn't even defeat Libya by themselves

      I read the rest of your post dw I just wanted to clarify that what I said there is in reference to hypothetical in which Russia is defeated, to the point where it lacks a conventional offensive ability and all the propaganda of Western media is real

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Even if Russia gimps itself for a decade or two, the European combined armies could hardly be called far superior.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >So if Russia loses
    Not really possible.
    >, even if they win, their capacity to act in an offensive manner is going to be incredibly diminished for the next 10-15 years
    It will likely be much higher thanks to an increased rate of military industrial manufacturing + the newly gained core of experienced war veterans. Hate to break it to you chud, but nations don't generally come out weaker after the victorious wars. Case in point, the US after 1865.
    >(just a guess made by a tired Australian) whilst supplies, bodies and will to fight replenish slowly.
    Russia has gained about 4 million new people in population (and this trend is likely to continue into this year and beyond), so the manpower shortage is the least of their problems for the foreseeble future
    >yada yada yada
    didn't bother to read the rest of your asinine reddit spaced horseshit

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Not really possible.
      I think so too, but I am more neutral on my stance. Politics aside my sympathies are with the Ukrainian citizens held hostage to fight and with the people of Donbass who have endured everything that they have for 8 years.

      >Hate to break it to you chud, but nations don't generally come out weaker after the victorious wars

      United Kingdom - WW1, WW2
      France - WW1, WW2
      USA - Vietnam
      Russia - Chechnya, Afghanistan, WW1

      Everything comes at a cost.

      > so the manpower shortage is the least of their problems for the foreseeble future

      Those are still bodies that have to a) be able to fight and b) be willing to fight

      >yada yada
      the spacing is so it isnt a gay block of text not my fault you got filtered by your reading level.

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >tired Australian
    hey Perun, how's it going, mate?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >perun
      Sorry mate I don't follow....it is late (early) Im going to sleep, maybe this name will be revealed to me in a dream 😮

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia is an active threat as long as it has nukes. So, the odds of NATO becoming obsolete within the next ~50 years are low.

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Russia gay
    USA gay as shit too
    I hope this has helped

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >1)
    >Hey this worked really well I guess we should stop doing it

    Are you actually dumb?

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The point is that individually we are weak twigs but together we form a mighty gay

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *