Yeah, a Pan-European defense force might not be such a bad idea.
Yeah, a Pan-European defense force might not be such a bad idea.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Except for the minor detail of European countries being unwilling to spend money on their military.
Hope is the denial of reality
Forgive me, not enough time for a full response.
Russia's playing a propaganda game, and we need to move accordingly. Even modest military movements will be fodder to Putin's media - we're being accused of military aggression already, no need to hand him proof. The easier we make it to tell that Putin's lying about pretty much everything, the better it is for us in the long run. Focusing purely on the economic aspects is better at this stage.Originally Posted by wiggin
Agreed on developing allied military a bit. I was also thinking that we really, really need a high gas tax right now. It's a shame that politics will prevent us from making the prudent moves.
Oh, we do spend money on the military. Just not in the proper way.
I mean I like peace and all, but I'm not someone who thinks that we don't need the military. Gets me quite upset when I see the politicians blundering about, spending billions for overpriced or useless stuff just because we have to create our own (see Eurofighter or the Talarion drone desaster...). And then we have soldiers forced to buy bulletproof vests on their own money.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2034rank.html
You need to spend about 3% of GDP to have any shot of having a useful military. So yes, the money is being misspent, but even if it wasn't, you still would have a crappy military.
Back on topic - an interesting development: http://news.yahoo.com/ap-enterprise-...070552553.html
Hope is the denial of reality
Probably you're right about the underspending. But given that the opposite party is Russia rather than the USA the first issue is lack of coordination.
Congratulations America
Actually, I think a pan-European military would be a terrible idea without federalization of the EU. There have been piecemeal attempts, such as the EU 'battlegroups' as part of the Common Security and Defense Policy, but those forces are not really suited for a real war and I question just rapid their 'rapid reaction' forces really are. Furthermore, they're essentially microcosms of the contributing country's military, rather than a standardized grouping.
The reason I think it's an awful idea is that there's too many chiefs trying to run things, and in the absence of a strong EU-wide executive capable of carrying out foreign policy on the behalf of member states (rather than in parallel with them), true military integration is going to be a disaster.
The moves I suggested are not aimed at the Russian populace - no matter what we do, it will be portrayed badly by Russian propaganda. I'm concerned with two things: sending a message to our treaty allies (both in Europe and elsewhere) that US security commitments are inviolable, and sending a message to potential adversaries (mostly Russia and China) to the same effect. The first goal is to reassure allies that our commitment is unwavering; doubting the resolve and ability of the US to come to the aid of allies would make for a much more unstable, dangerous world. Similarly, we want to make explicit to Russia and others the costs of impinging directly on our allies' interests - an occasional reminder that despite the relatively passive nature of US foreign policy in this administration, we are still very much engaged and have ironclad commitments we will uphold.
This is why so many people were disappointed by Obama let Syria cross a self-imposed 'red line' without consequence: Not so much because we needed to punish Syria, and certainly not because we thought that the rebels are necessarily any better than Assad, but because when the US makes a clear commitment to an action, we need to follow through. Global stability is to a large part predicated on the assumption that the US will, in a crunch, intervene.
Re: gas tax, I'm not certain I really see how that would help much. US consumption of oil is on a general downward trend already, and our consumption of natural gas is tied to the fact that we can't currently export most of our glut to Europe or Japan - raising the price will depress consumption in the US, yes (probably with negative environmental consequences), but it won't necessarily help prices or supplies in the rest of the world. Fast-tracking approval for LNG export facilities will help in the medium term (years), but not in the short term.
A few comments on all of the above:
I think that there's two separate but related issues here. The first is that most NATO members don't spend nearly enough on their militaries; Loki is right, if you spend too little you'll get a lot of the 'skeleton' on a fighting force (administrative overhead, training, pension costs, etc.) without any actual muscle. But it's hard to actually measure this in the context of GDP - if the US spent only 1.5% of GDP on our military (close to the level of many European allies), it would still be pretty damned impressive, just because of the size of the US economy. Of course, it wouldn't be nearly enough given the size of our commitments and our ambition as a world power, but it would pack plenty of punch. The problem is that European economies - even Germany, France, and Britain - are quite small in comparison and don't have that luxury. Overhead and legacy costs are to some extent fixed, so base spending does indeed need to be higher if these countries want to make a meaningful contribution to security.
The second issue is that what is spent is spent stupidly. Khen is right that there are naked attempts at industrial policy and pointless duplication of effort. Not every country - or even every big country - in Europe should have a large national champion in the defense industry. Standardization should be a no-brainer. Furthermore, sharing of crucial capabilities should be formalized - transport aircraft, refueling tankers, and aircraft carriers are obvious candidates. The US can churn out over a dozen C-17s a year and drop a supercarrier every 5 or 6 without breaking a sweat, but most individual nations can't possibly hope to match that. Instead each country has a measly, overpriced, and utterly useless small contingent, there should be a largish common pool that can be used without too much diplomatic wrangling.
Aside from procurement issues, they also tend to have forces that have too many soldiers who are poorly trained and equipped, and are generally just long-term drains on the public purse (because of pension costs et al). This means that some nations should simply cease to have major land forces, instead specializing on specific capabilities to contribute to the broader alliance - frankly, it's absurd that places like Belgium continue to try having a traditional multi-branch military with such a tiny force and budget; it literally can't do anything. Instead, they could take their ~25k troops and focus on one or two things they can do really well and use that in conjunction with allies in future conflicts. European powers with global aspirations of their own (UK and France) can keep a traditional three branch military, but they should be prepared to pay for it. Others should stop planning to defend Fulda Gap and focus on meaningful, modern forces rather than large formations of indifferently skilled infantry.
The point is that in its current state, NATO couldn't possibly hope to challenge any near-peer such as Russia without US backing. Russia is moderately technologically advanced, numerically superior, and politically unified; if European NATO members actually worked together and had intelligently structure and adequately funded/equipped forces, this wouldn't be a concern. Given the complete absence of said conditions, however, they will continue to rely on US security guarantees until someone gets their head out of their ass on defense policy in Europe.
Loki: very interesting use of FATCA! Might actually start to sting?
It's the first time I read about it. I assume we'll hear more about it if it's actually effective.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sounds like a horrible law; it's entirely in line with the way the US sees its citizens als chattel to be sheared on a regular basis by the IRS. Otherwise of course it's the law of unintended consequences; this kind of things happen all the time in crisis. I wonder if the US really wants to hit Russia quite this hard this early in the conflict.
Congratulations America
Somewhat related: "The Sims" earned an 18+ rating (would be "NC-17" in the US) in Russia.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
SourceA group of armed Kremlin-backed rebels in possession of a 100,000 ballots already marked with a ‘yes’ vote for the May 11 referendum in Donetsk Oblast were captured and the ballots seized during the Ukrainian government’s anti-terrorist operation near the rebel-occupied city of Sloviansk on May 10.
In addition, a Kalashnikov rifle, Makarov pistol, plus ammunition were seized, Obezrevatel reported. Earlier, Ukrainska Pravada reported that the separatists had seized 80 schools in Donetsk city to carry out their referendum.
Local news website Novosti Donbassa reported that at polling stations in some Donetsk schools voting had already begun.
Seems legit.
You mean it's not possible to arrange and carry out a vote in a territory you do not control without sufficient personnel and no training and on a week's notice?
Hope is the denial of reality
It's a tough challenge, that's why Russia's assisting them with ballots already helpfully filled out! Good guy, that Putin.
Especially since there's substantial evidence showing that even the Crimean referendum was falsified.
Hope is the denial of reality
OK, so this is Putin challenging EU nations and the US economically, and NATO member nations and the UN Security Council militarily....on his egomaniacal pursuit to create a New Russia that looks more like the old Soviet Union? Is that about right, in a nutshell?
What's missing in this mess is how many Ukrainians actually want to be an independent sovereign nation versus how many want to be Russian (again)....and it's not clear that their voting processes or elected officials are democratic, let alone representative.
The only thing that's clear to me so far -- is that Europe doesn't mind cheap Russian gas/oil, even if it comes with Putin's New Russia annexation strategy.
edit: It's not that different from US policy, so it's not like we have some moral higher ground, btw.
We do know: http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/05/08/...in-one-country (the results of this poll are pretty similar to other ones taken in the previous year).
And sure, the US is known for going around and conquering shit. It's why Basrah and Herat are currently part of the US. We also go out of our way to destabilize every country we don't like.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm skeptical of polls and surveys due to their built-in sampling errors. A "majority" of respondents in North Korea purport to love their illustrious leader, too...but it doesn't really mean much.
In other words, Putin is imitating strategies/tactics previously used by the US....And sure, the US is known for going around and conquering shit. It's why Basrah and Herat are currently part of the US. We also go out of our way to destabilize every country we don't like.
I.E. You have no idea how polls work. Good job.
Yes, he's imitating the tactic where a US president claims to be the protector of Anglo-Saxons anywhere and uses that as a justification for an invasion of Canada.
Hope is the denial of reality
I have a good idea how user polls and surveys are conducted. They aren't necessarily reflections of general populations.
Yes, he's imitating the tactic where a US president claims to be the protector of Anglo-Saxons anywhere and uses that as a justification for an invasion of Canada.My apologies, I confused your knowledge as a political scientist for being an international diplomat.
Time for another thread meld?
http://theworldforgotten.com/showthread.php?t=3387
Most legitimate vote ever.A CNN crew saw several people vote twice at one polling station, where the ballot boxes were decorated with new Donetsk independence flags.
There was also a report of video showing three men arrested near Slovyansk with boxes of "yes" ballots in their car.
Not sure if this is better than the Russian practice of one man, one vote, one time.
Hope is the denial of reality
"A CNN crew saw several people vote twice at one polling station, where the ballot boxes were decorated with new Donetsk independence flags.
There was also a report of video showing three men arrested near Slovyansk with boxes of "yes" ballots in their car."
Hmm I'd suggest that they require a state issued ID before being allowed to vote but apparently even in the civilized world that's not permissible.
I know you love reaching, because critical thinking is "hard", but requiring a state ID doesn't address either of the issues you quoted.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27369980
I wonder if Putin ever gets tired of lying. Or if anyone still believes him about anything. At this point, if Putin said the earth was round, I probably wouldn't believe him.
Hope is the denial of reality
you don't and neither does the United States as nation you seem to hold Putin up to a much higher standard then your nation or even yourself. Although frankly I don't see what you consider to be Putin's lie in the article unless you assume Putin has full control of the protests in Ukraine which he doesn't.
I am pretty sure Putin will do everything he can not to let the new regions join Russia at this point as Russia is not ready to absorb such a large population that is significantly poorer then the Russian population. However if the developments continue as they are he will face being ousted by someone who is ready to take more decisive action.
So Putin tells the protesters not to hold the vote, he acknowledges that there's no way to hold the vote fairly at this point, and then he instantly recognizes the results of this mockery? And this vote was a mockery even by Russian standards. I like how the first response of a Russian nationalist is to deny. The second response is to claim moral equivalence.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ah, but then he can turn around and say, "well, they are begging me to resolve this..."
Hope is the denial of reality
SourceThe organisers of the referendum would not give numbers of votes cast but said 89.7 per cent voted to leave Ukraine, 10.19 per cent to stay and 0.74 spoiled their ballot papers. A total participation of 100.63 per cent.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote