|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 12 2016 00:01 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 23:06 xM(Z wrote:On November 11 2016 22:51 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2016 22:41 xM(Z wrote:
US leaving NATO could be really good for US weapon sales. Trump will leave dozens of rich countries in the dust so chances are they'll all panic and run to the nearest weapon supplier because ... Russia.
also, you people are confusing/mixing up US ideological interests in "the West" with US financial interests when you talk about US hegemony. Trump does not care about western ideals but be sure that if US leaves NATO, american corporations will fiercely compete in the EU market from a position of imense power; they'll buy or/and sue states by the dozens because ... immigration, sovereignty, austerity, corruption, the establishment and so on. Or, and equally likely in this what-if pipedream scenario of yours, they will be really fucking pissed off and cancel their orders of the shitty-but-roped-in JSF and the European (particularly French, because they are the only ones who actually still have the industry) military manufacturers will revitalize the entire Euro economy with Eurofighters, and a whole assortment of missiles. skipping past the fact that your scenario envisions a united EU(which is pretty far from what's happening right now), that scenario fails on logistics; France will have to supply (for ex.) hundred of Rafale jets in like what, a year?(there go the Baltics); and the typhoon is made by the dutch/italians/brits so when the brits pull out, you're done for. the what if is pretty strong in any scenario but you dudes are floating on clouds. Edit: see US as a giant corporation(not as a country) that is looking only for financial gain. in that case, the divide(of the EU) and conquer is a winning strategy; worst case here, they'll takeover the EU then liquidate it. + Show Spoiler +haha, yes i heard me saying it Well, most of the European countries still have a pretty sizeable airforce as it is. It may not hold a candle to the US airforce, but it would definitely be enough to bomb the fuck out of Russia if they so much as thought about invading the Baltics. The fact that the US is so incredibly far ahead in military to the rest of the world doesn't mean that European nations have a smaller army than Russia. Hell, going by military spending, just Germany and France together have more forces than Russia (of course, military spending is deceptive if it comes to an actual ground war over the baltics), and I'm sure that if Russia were to be so bold, the UK would join, Brexit or no. Italy is no slouch either, and neither is Poland. European solidarity is taking a beating, but the one thing that hasn't really changed through all this is the military integration. Even without NATO (which wouldn't necessarily disband just because the US abandoned it), there's a LOT of intergovernmental cooperation when it comes to military in the EU. But lets be serious. Russia is not going to invade the Baltics if NATO falls apart. Georgia, Eastern Ukraine and maybe some other areas like Azerbeijan are fucked, which is bad enough, but Russia isn't stupid enough to play chicken with the EU. We were talking about who stood to profit from the US stepping out of NATO. You claimed the US military industrial complex would win bigly. All I said was that there's a good chance that the US stepping out of NATO would cause such resentment that it would kickstart the European military industrial complex back into existence (powered initially by France that still actually has one).
This is why we're arguing that.
As of yet, you haven't shown any substance and just take the "y u promote imperialism" line. Again. This bores me and it doesn't get anywhere.
|
come on men, i actually had sources: The two sides adopted strategies that were generally similar across the games played.The Red players typically made a main effort toward the Latvian capital of Riga, with a secondary attack that quickly secured the predominantly ethnic Russian areas of northeast Estonia, and then proceeded toward Tallinn. The NATO players, recognizing that they had woefully inadequate forces to mount anything resembling a forward defense, sought instead to use indigenous forces to delay Red’s advance along major axes while positioning the bulk of their forces in and around Tallinn and Riga in an attempt to sustain a minimal lodgment in and around the two capitals. The outcome was, bluntly, a disaster for NATO. Across multiple plays of the game, Russian forces eliminated or bypassed all resistance and were at the gates of or actually entering Riga, Tallinn, or both, between 36 and 60 hours after the start of hostilities.
Four factors appeared to contribute most substantially to this result.
- First and obviously, the overall correlation of forces was dramatically in Russia’s favor. Although the two sides’ raw numbers of maneuver battalions—22 for Russia and 12 for NATO—are not badly disproportionate, seven of NATO’s are those of Estonia and Latvia, which are extremely light, lack tactical mobility, and are poorly equipped for fighting against an armored opponent. Indeed, the only armor in the NATO force is the light armor in a single Stryker battalion, which is credited with having deployed from Germany during the crisis buildup prior to the conflict. NATO has no main battle tanks in the field.
Meanwhile, all Russia’s forces are motorized, mechanized, or tank units. Even their eight airborne battalions are equipped with light armored vehicles, unlike their U.S. counterparts.
- Second, Russia also enjoys an overwhelming advantage in tactical and operational fires. The Russian order of battle
includes ten artillery battalions (three equipped with tube artilability meant that they could be pinned and bypassed if the Russian players so desired. By and large, NATO’s infantry found themselves unable even to retreat successfully and were destroyed in place.
|
On November 13 2016 03:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2016 00:01 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2016 23:06 xM(Z wrote:On November 11 2016 22:51 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2016 22:41 xM(Z wrote:
US leaving NATO could be really good for US weapon sales. Trump will leave dozens of rich countries in the dust so chances are they'll all panic and run to the nearest weapon supplier because ... Russia.
also, you people are confusing/mixing up US ideological interests in "the West" with US financial interests when you talk about US hegemony. Trump does not care about western ideals but be sure that if US leaves NATO, american corporations will fiercely compete in the EU market from a position of imense power; they'll buy or/and sue states by the dozens because ... immigration, sovereignty, austerity, corruption, the establishment and so on. Or, and equally likely in this what-if pipedream scenario of yours, they will be really fucking pissed off and cancel their orders of the shitty-but-roped-in JSF and the European (particularly French, because they are the only ones who actually still have the industry) military manufacturers will revitalize the entire Euro economy with Eurofighters, and a whole assortment of missiles. skipping past the fact that your scenario envisions a united EU(which is pretty far from what's happening right now), that scenario fails on logistics; France will have to supply (for ex.) hundred of Rafale jets in like what, a year?(there go the Baltics); and the typhoon is made by the dutch/italians/brits so when the brits pull out, you're done for. the what if is pretty strong in any scenario but you dudes are floating on clouds. Edit: see US as a giant corporation(not as a country) that is looking only for financial gain. in that case, the divide(of the EU) and conquer is a winning strategy; worst case here, they'll takeover the EU then liquidate it. + Show Spoiler +haha, yes i heard me saying it Well, most of the European countries still have a pretty sizeable airforce as it is. It may not hold a candle to the US airforce, but it would definitely be enough to bomb the fuck out of Russia if they so much as thought about invading the Baltics. The fact that the US is so incredibly far ahead in military to the rest of the world doesn't mean that European nations have a smaller army than Russia. Hell, going by military spending, just Germany and France together have more forces than Russia (of course, military spending is deceptive if it comes to an actual ground war over the baltics), and I'm sure that if Russia were to be so bold, the UK would join, Brexit or no. Italy is no slouch either, and neither is Poland. European solidarity is taking a beating, but the one thing that hasn't really changed through all this is the military integration. Even without NATO (which wouldn't necessarily disband just because the US abandoned it), there's a LOT of intergovernmental cooperation when it comes to military in the EU. But lets be serious. Russia is not going to invade the Baltics if NATO falls apart. Georgia, Eastern Ukraine and maybe some other areas like Azerbeijan are fucked, which is bad enough, but Russia isn't stupid enough to play chicken with the EU. We were talking about who stood to profit from the US stepping out of NATO. You claimed the US military industrial complex would win bigly. All I said was that there's a good chance that the US stepping out of NATO would cause such resentment that it would kickstart the European military industrial complex back into existence (powered initially by France that still actually has one). This is why we're arguing that. As of yet, you haven't shown any substance and just take the "y u promote imperialism" line. Again. This bores me and it doesn't get anywhere. What are you even on about? Is random deflection all you can type? So rather than to answer me, you now are either contradicting yourself with a quote.
Or you arguing against Acrofales by saying that Russia will invade the Baltics if NATO falls apart as the political and military situation would be favourable towards a Russian invasion?
|
Russia doesnt have the money to even benefit from invading the balkans, so its a stupid idea alltogether.
Unless i missed tons of diamond and gold mines
|
On November 13 2016 04:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 03:35 LegalLord wrote:On November 12 2016 00:01 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2016 23:06 xM(Z wrote:On November 11 2016 22:51 Acrofales wrote:On November 11 2016 22:41 xM(Z wrote:
US leaving NATO could be really good for US weapon sales. Trump will leave dozens of rich countries in the dust so chances are they'll all panic and run to the nearest weapon supplier because ... Russia.
also, you people are confusing/mixing up US ideological interests in "the West" with US financial interests when you talk about US hegemony. Trump does not care about western ideals but be sure that if US leaves NATO, american corporations will fiercely compete in the EU market from a position of imense power; they'll buy or/and sue states by the dozens because ... immigration, sovereignty, austerity, corruption, the establishment and so on. Or, and equally likely in this what-if pipedream scenario of yours, they will be really fucking pissed off and cancel their orders of the shitty-but-roped-in JSF and the European (particularly French, because they are the only ones who actually still have the industry) military manufacturers will revitalize the entire Euro economy with Eurofighters, and a whole assortment of missiles. skipping past the fact that your scenario envisions a united EU(which is pretty far from what's happening right now), that scenario fails on logistics; France will have to supply (for ex.) hundred of Rafale jets in like what, a year?(there go the Baltics); and the typhoon is made by the dutch/italians/brits so when the brits pull out, you're done for. the what if is pretty strong in any scenario but you dudes are floating on clouds. Edit: see US as a giant corporation(not as a country) that is looking only for financial gain. in that case, the divide(of the EU) and conquer is a winning strategy; worst case here, they'll takeover the EU then liquidate it. + Show Spoiler +haha, yes i heard me saying it Well, most of the European countries still have a pretty sizeable airforce as it is. It may not hold a candle to the US airforce, but it would definitely be enough to bomb the fuck out of Russia if they so much as thought about invading the Baltics. The fact that the US is so incredibly far ahead in military to the rest of the world doesn't mean that European nations have a smaller army than Russia. Hell, going by military spending, just Germany and France together have more forces than Russia (of course, military spending is deceptive if it comes to an actual ground war over the baltics), and I'm sure that if Russia were to be so bold, the UK would join, Brexit or no. Italy is no slouch either, and neither is Poland. European solidarity is taking a beating, but the one thing that hasn't really changed through all this is the military integration. Even without NATO (which wouldn't necessarily disband just because the US abandoned it), there's a LOT of intergovernmental cooperation when it comes to military in the EU. But lets be serious. Russia is not going to invade the Baltics if NATO falls apart. Georgia, Eastern Ukraine and maybe some other areas like Azerbeijan are fucked, which is bad enough, but Russia isn't stupid enough to play chicken with the EU. We were talking about who stood to profit from the US stepping out of NATO. You claimed the US military industrial complex would win bigly. All I said was that there's a good chance that the US stepping out of NATO would cause such resentment that it would kickstart the European military industrial complex back into existence (powered initially by France that still actually has one). This is why we're arguing that. As of yet, you haven't shown any substance and just take the "y u promote imperialism" line. Again. This bores me and it doesn't get anywhere. What are you even on about? Is random deflection all you can type? So rather than to answer me, you now are either contradicting yourself with a quote. Or you arguing against Acrofales by saying that Russia will invade the Baltics if NATO falls apart as the political and military situation would be favourable towards a Russian invasion?
Well, the real reason we're arguing is because xMZ posited that the US would benefit from leaving NATO because their arms sales to Europe would skyrocket overnight. I interjected that there didn't seem to be any reason to assume that Europe would be buying weapons from the country that just shafted them, rather than rebooting their own military industry.
xMZ's reply was that Europe would do that because of panic over Russians invading the Baltics. Queue two pages of pointless discussion over comparative military forces, while the main gist of my argument is that it doesn't really matter who has the largest penis. Both Russia and Europe have plenty large penises that if such a war would happen, the entire region would be demolished even without the use of nukes. It thus doesn't seem at all likely that Russia would fancy an adventure into the Baltics, despite convincing wargames showing that they would be impossible to stop. It's not the first 3 days of blitzkrieg that matter. It's the ensuing god-knows-how-long of WW3 that I don't see any reason to assume Russia has an apetite for.
And therefore, regardless of current penis sizes, there doesn't seem to be any reason for European nations to panic and buy hundreds of American penis enlargements overnight.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On the other hand, I'm quite sure that NATO gets the US plenty of sales by coercing alliances in such a way that alternative weapon vendors become less viable. Europe has more reason to question NATO membership than the country that enforces its hegemony through its existence.
All this was mostly a tangent, though war games tends to be a tangent that a lot of people have at least a partial interest in.
|
On November 13 2016 04:18 xM(Z wrote:come on men, i actually had sources: Show nested quote +The two sides adopted strategies that were generally similar across the games played.The Red players typically made a main effort toward the Latvian capital of Riga, with a secondary attack that quickly secured the predominantly ethnic Russian areas of northeast Estonia, and then proceeded toward Tallinn. The NATO players, recognizing that they had woefully inadequate forces to mount anything resembling a forward defense, sought instead to use indigenous forces to delay Red’s advance along major axes while positioning the bulk of their forces in and around Tallinn and Riga in an attempt to sustain a minimal lodgment in and around the two capitals. The outcome was, bluntly, a disaster for NATO. Across multiple plays of the game, Russian forces eliminated or bypassed all resistance and were at the gates of or actually entering Riga, Tallinn, or both, between 36 and 60 hours after the start of hostilities.
Four factors appeared to contribute most substantially to this result.
- First and obviously, the overall correlation of forces was dramatically in Russia’s favor. Although the two sides’ raw numbers of maneuver battalions—22 for Russia and 12 for NATO—are not badly disproportionate, seven of NATO’s are those of Estonia and Latvia, which are extremely light, lack tactical mobility, and are poorly equipped for fighting against an armored opponent. Indeed, the only armor in the NATO force is the light armor in a single Stryker battalion, which is credited with having deployed from Germany during the crisis buildup prior to the conflict. NATO has no main battle tanks in the field.
Meanwhile, all Russia’s forces are motorized, mechanized, or tank units. Even their eight airborne battalions are equipped with light armored vehicles, unlike their U.S. counterparts.
- Second, Russia also enjoys an overwhelming advantage in tactical and operational fires. The Russian order of battle
includes ten artillery battalions (three equipped with tube artilability meant that they could be pinned and bypassed if the Russian players so desired. By and large, NATO’s infantry found themselves unable even to retreat successfully and were destroyed in place.
noone is arguing that the EU would be able to stop that. People are saying that your assertion that the EU would panic-buy US military is pretty shady.
I mean you just said a couple pages ago that, and I quote On November 11 2016 17:48 xM(Z wrote:
i hope for a US - Russia rapprochement and the ditching of the German Empire all together; worst case scenario the Balkans go to the chinese. while now basicly arguing that there's not enough troops there to stop the above scenario. The two are kind of intervened.
It's not that Germany can't have more tanks, it's that neither Germany nor the population of those countries wants to have that.
I mean THIS is a thing:
+ Show Spoiler [Wikipedia] +Exports:
Germany has fielded about 2,125 Leopard 2 main battle tanks in various versions, but following the German reunification most of the tanks have been sold. Other countries demanded newly or locally built tanks.
The Royal Netherlands Army ordered 445 Leopard 2 tanks on the second March 1979, after examining the results of the Leopard 2AV in the United States.[39] It became the first export customer of the Leopard 2 and the vehicles were delivered between July 1981 and July 1986. The Swiss army decided to purchase Leopard 2 tanks over the M1A1 Abrams after trialing both tanks between August 1981 and June 1982. The Swiss decision was made on 24 August 1983 and the funding was subsequently approved by the government in 1984.[40] Thirty-five of the tanks were delivered by Kraus-Maffei by June 1987, Eidgenössische Konstruktionswerkstätte Thun started license production of 345 additional vehicles in December 1987.
The Leopard 2 became very popular in the 1990s, when the shrinking German army offered many of its redundant Leopard 2s at a reduced price. It became successful enough in Europe that the manufacturer started calling it the Euro Leopard, despite France, Britain, and Italy all operating their own MBTs. But with further non-European orders, the name "Global-Leopard" is now used instead.[41]
After investigating the option of a locally developed replacement for the Strv 103 tank, Sweden decided to buy a foreign tank model. The Leopard 2 Improved (Leopard 2A5 prototype) won the competition against the M1A2 Abrams and the French Leclerc, after intensive test from January 1994 to June 1994, the Swedish military opted for the Leopard 2.[42] The Swedish military also evaluated the Soviet T-80U tank, but separately from the other tanks. The Swedish military found the Leopard 2 Improved to meet the military demands by 90%.[42] The M1A2 only met the Swedish requirements by 86%, whereas the Leclerc met 63%. Sweden contracted on 20 June 1994 the production of 120 Stridsvagn 122 (Swedish Leopard 2A5 subversion) with many components being made locally. The first Stridsvagn 122 was delivered on 19 December 1996. Sweden also leased and later bought a total of 160 Leopard 2A4 tanks in 1994 and 1995, the first vehicle was delivered in February 1994.[42]
Denmark bought 51 ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks after the Danish military school, the Haerens Kampskole, recommended to base the adoption of a new tank on the Swedish army trials. The tanks were delivered in 1997, but the upgrade to Leopard 2A5 level was already decided. In 2004 the Danish army bought another 18 ex-German Leopard 2 tanks.
In 1998 Greece held a competition to determine the main battle tank for the Hellenic army. The Leopard 2 Improved managed to outperform the Challenger 2E, Leclerc, M1A2 Abrams, T-80U and, T-84 and was subsequently chosen by the Greek officials. In March 2003 Greece ordered 170 Leopard 2 tanks of which 140 were locally assembled.[43][44] Greece also bought 183 Leopard 2A4 and 150 Leopard 1 tanks.[45]
Spain initially leased 109 Leopard 2A4 tanks, after Krauss-Maffei withdrew from the Lince development, a special lighter version of the Leopard 2 developed together with Santa Bárbara Sistemas. Before the end of the Lince tank, Spain already had rejected the M1A1 Abrams and the Vickers Valiant tank. After deciding to purchase the leased tanks, Santa Bárbara Sistemas acquired the licence to locally produce 219 Leopard 2A6 tanks for the Spanish army.[46]
Poland received 128 Leopard 2A4 tanks from German army stocks in 2002. In 2013 Poland ordered a further 119 ex-German Leopard 2s. Finland bought 124 used Leopard 2A4 tanks and six armoured bridge-layer Leopard 2L tanks from Germany in 2002 and 2003. The tanks served as replacement for the old Soviet-made T-55 and T-72M1. The Netherlands resold 114 of their tanks (and one turret) to Austria, 80 to Canada in 2007,[47] another 52 tanks to Norway, 37 to Portugal and finally 100 to Finland.
In 2005 Turkey ordered 298 Leopard 2 tanks from German army stocks.[48] The Leopard 2 was already chosen in 2001 after successfully competing one year earlier in the Turkish army trials against the T-84 Yatagan, Leclerc and a version of the M1A2 Abrams fitted with a German MTU diesel engine. Turkey already wanted to buy 1,000 Leopard 2 tanks in 1999, but the German government rejected such deal. Chile bought 172 ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks and 273 Marder 1A3 IFVs in 2007. Singapore bought 96 Leopard 2 tanks from Germany in 2006.[49] Indonesia ordered 103 Leopard 2 tanks and 42 Marder 1A3 IFVs in 2013.[50] At first the export of heavy weapons to Indonesia was not allowed by the German government, due to the questionable human rights record of Indonesia. 61 of the 103 Leopard 2 tanks will be upgraded by Rheinmetall to the Leopard 2RI standard, based on Rheinmetall's Revolution modular upgrade concept.[51]
Qatar ordered 62 Leopard 2A7 tanks and 24 Panzerhaubitze 2000s in 2013[52] The delivery of the tanks started in late 2015 and the first tanks were displayed on a military parade on 18 December 2015.[53]
Saudi Arabia has shown interest in buying the Leopard 2 since the 1980s. However, due to the political circumstances and the questionable situation of human rights in Saudi Arabia, no deal was made. Saudi Arabia renewed its intention of buying Leopard 2 tanks in 2011.[54] While earlier news reports suggested an interest in buying about 200 tanks, later reports revealed an increased order of 600 to 800 tanks.[54] The German government at first approved the deal, but canceled it later due to human rights concerns and Saudi Arabia's military intervention in Bahrain.[54][55]
The Leopard 2 was also tested by the United Kingdom. In 1989 the Leopard 2 was evaluated as possible replacement for the Challenger 1 tank.[56] Ultimately the British armed forces decided to adopt the locally made Challenger 2. The Australian Army evaluated ex-Swiss Army Leopard 2s as a replacement for its Leopard 1AS tanks in 2003, but selected the M1A1 AIM instead due to easier logistics. More modern versions of the Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams, such as the Leopard 2A6 were not considered due to their higher price.[57]
So I'd argue, like most other people here, that if the US were to leave NATO that that would certainly increase spending from EU nations on EU military if anything. Why would they even want to fall back on US military in such a scenario?
|
On November 13 2016 10:00 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 04:18 xM(Z wrote:come on men, i actually had sources: The two sides adopted strategies that were generally similar across the games played.The Red players typically made a main effort toward the Latvian capital of Riga, with a secondary attack that quickly secured the predominantly ethnic Russian areas of northeast Estonia, and then proceeded toward Tallinn. The NATO players, recognizing that they had woefully inadequate forces to mount anything resembling a forward defense, sought instead to use indigenous forces to delay Red’s advance along major axes while positioning the bulk of their forces in and around Tallinn and Riga in an attempt to sustain a minimal lodgment in and around the two capitals. The outcome was, bluntly, a disaster for NATO. Across multiple plays of the game, Russian forces eliminated or bypassed all resistance and were at the gates of or actually entering Riga, Tallinn, or both, between 36 and 60 hours after the start of hostilities.
Four factors appeared to contribute most substantially to this result.
- First and obviously, the overall correlation of forces was dramatically in Russia’s favor. Although the two sides’ raw numbers of maneuver battalions—22 for Russia and 12 for NATO—are not badly disproportionate, seven of NATO’s are those of Estonia and Latvia, which are extremely light, lack tactical mobility, and are poorly equipped for fighting against an armored opponent. Indeed, the only armor in the NATO force is the light armor in a single Stryker battalion, which is credited with having deployed from Germany during the crisis buildup prior to the conflict. NATO has no main battle tanks in the field.
Meanwhile, all Russia’s forces are motorized, mechanized, or tank units. Even their eight airborne battalions are equipped with light armored vehicles, unlike their U.S. counterparts.
- Second, Russia also enjoys an overwhelming advantage in tactical and operational fires. The Russian order of battle
includes ten artillery battalions (three equipped with tube artilability meant that they could be pinned and bypassed if the Russian players so desired. By and large, NATO’s infantry found themselves unable even to retreat successfully and were destroyed in place. noone is arguing that the EU would be able to stop that. People are saying that your assertion that the EU would panic-buy US military is pretty shady. I mean you just said a couple pages ago that, and I quote Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 17:48 xM(Z wrote:
i hope for a US - Russia rapprochement and the ditching of the German Empire all together; worst case scenario the Balkans go to the chinese. while now basicly arguing that there's not enough troops there to stop the above scenario. The two are kind of intervened. It's not that Germany can't have more tanks, it's that neither Germany nor the population of those countries wants to have that. I mean THIS is a thing: + Show Spoiler [Wikipedia] +Exports:
Germany has fielded about 2,125 Leopard 2 main battle tanks in various versions, but following the German reunification most of the tanks have been sold. Other countries demanded newly or locally built tanks.
The Royal Netherlands Army ordered 445 Leopard 2 tanks on the second March 1979, after examining the results of the Leopard 2AV in the United States.[39] It became the first export customer of the Leopard 2 and the vehicles were delivered between July 1981 and July 1986. The Swiss army decided to purchase Leopard 2 tanks over the M1A1 Abrams after trialing both tanks between August 1981 and June 1982. The Swiss decision was made on 24 August 1983 and the funding was subsequently approved by the government in 1984.[40] Thirty-five of the tanks were delivered by Kraus-Maffei by June 1987, Eidgenössische Konstruktionswerkstätte Thun started license production of 345 additional vehicles in December 1987.
The Leopard 2 became very popular in the 1990s, when the shrinking German army offered many of its redundant Leopard 2s at a reduced price. It became successful enough in Europe that the manufacturer started calling it the Euro Leopard, despite France, Britain, and Italy all operating their own MBTs. But with further non-European orders, the name "Global-Leopard" is now used instead.[41]
After investigating the option of a locally developed replacement for the Strv 103 tank, Sweden decided to buy a foreign tank model. The Leopard 2 Improved (Leopard 2A5 prototype) won the competition against the M1A2 Abrams and the French Leclerc, after intensive test from January 1994 to June 1994, the Swedish military opted for the Leopard 2.[42] The Swedish military also evaluated the Soviet T-80U tank, but separately from the other tanks. The Swedish military found the Leopard 2 Improved to meet the military demands by 90%.[42] The M1A2 only met the Swedish requirements by 86%, whereas the Leclerc met 63%. Sweden contracted on 20 June 1994 the production of 120 Stridsvagn 122 (Swedish Leopard 2A5 subversion) with many components being made locally. The first Stridsvagn 122 was delivered on 19 December 1996. Sweden also leased and later bought a total of 160 Leopard 2A4 tanks in 1994 and 1995, the first vehicle was delivered in February 1994.[42]
Denmark bought 51 ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks after the Danish military school, the Haerens Kampskole, recommended to base the adoption of a new tank on the Swedish army trials. The tanks were delivered in 1997, but the upgrade to Leopard 2A5 level was already decided. In 2004 the Danish army bought another 18 ex-German Leopard 2 tanks.
In 1998 Greece held a competition to determine the main battle tank for the Hellenic army. The Leopard 2 Improved managed to outperform the Challenger 2E, Leclerc, M1A2 Abrams, T-80U and, T-84 and was subsequently chosen by the Greek officials. In March 2003 Greece ordered 170 Leopard 2 tanks of which 140 were locally assembled.[43][44] Greece also bought 183 Leopard 2A4 and 150 Leopard 1 tanks.[45]
Spain initially leased 109 Leopard 2A4 tanks, after Krauss-Maffei withdrew from the Lince development, a special lighter version of the Leopard 2 developed together with Santa Bárbara Sistemas. Before the end of the Lince tank, Spain already had rejected the M1A1 Abrams and the Vickers Valiant tank. After deciding to purchase the leased tanks, Santa Bárbara Sistemas acquired the licence to locally produce 219 Leopard 2A6 tanks for the Spanish army.[46]
Poland received 128 Leopard 2A4 tanks from German army stocks in 2002. In 2013 Poland ordered a further 119 ex-German Leopard 2s. Finland bought 124 used Leopard 2A4 tanks and six armoured bridge-layer Leopard 2L tanks from Germany in 2002 and 2003. The tanks served as replacement for the old Soviet-made T-55 and T-72M1. The Netherlands resold 114 of their tanks (and one turret) to Austria, 80 to Canada in 2007,[47] another 52 tanks to Norway, 37 to Portugal and finally 100 to Finland.
In 2005 Turkey ordered 298 Leopard 2 tanks from German army stocks.[48] The Leopard 2 was already chosen in 2001 after successfully competing one year earlier in the Turkish army trials against the T-84 Yatagan, Leclerc and a version of the M1A2 Abrams fitted with a German MTU diesel engine. Turkey already wanted to buy 1,000 Leopard 2 tanks in 1999, but the German government rejected such deal. Chile bought 172 ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks and 273 Marder 1A3 IFVs in 2007. Singapore bought 96 Leopard 2 tanks from Germany in 2006.[49] Indonesia ordered 103 Leopard 2 tanks and 42 Marder 1A3 IFVs in 2013.[50] At first the export of heavy weapons to Indonesia was not allowed by the German government, due to the questionable human rights record of Indonesia. 61 of the 103 Leopard 2 tanks will be upgraded by Rheinmetall to the Leopard 2RI standard, based on Rheinmetall's Revolution modular upgrade concept.[51]
Qatar ordered 62 Leopard 2A7 tanks and 24 Panzerhaubitze 2000s in 2013[52] The delivery of the tanks started in late 2015 and the first tanks were displayed on a military parade on 18 December 2015.[53]
Saudi Arabia has shown interest in buying the Leopard 2 since the 1980s. However, due to the political circumstances and the questionable situation of human rights in Saudi Arabia, no deal was made. Saudi Arabia renewed its intention of buying Leopard 2 tanks in 2011.[54] While earlier news reports suggested an interest in buying about 200 tanks, later reports revealed an increased order of 600 to 800 tanks.[54] The German government at first approved the deal, but canceled it later due to human rights concerns and Saudi Arabia's military intervention in Bahrain.[54][55]
The Leopard 2 was also tested by the United Kingdom. In 1989 the Leopard 2 was evaluated as possible replacement for the Challenger 1 tank.[56] Ultimately the British armed forces decided to adopt the locally made Challenger 2. The Australian Army evaluated ex-Swiss Army Leopard 2s as a replacement for its Leopard 1AS tanks in 2003, but selected the M1A1 AIM instead due to easier logistics. More modern versions of the Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams, such as the Leopard 2A6 were not considered due to their higher price.[57] So I'd argue, like most other people here, that if the US were to leave NATO that that would certainly increase spending from EU nations on EU military if anything. Why would they even want to fall back on US military in such a scenario? it's because from where i'm sitting you people are blind to what actually happens in EU right now. almost all of you see EU as this loyal and unified block of good doers.
i see this: Poland, Romania, Czechs, the Dutch, Sweden and i think Serbia or Slovenia are US owned; i'm talking here about their media, their political apparatus, their resources and so on. those countries would definitely buy either local or US manufactured weaponry because even if we ignore the bought loyalty, there is no doubt in my mind that after leaving NATO(IF it happens), US will offer military alliances to individual ex-EU countries and they'll take it; they'll bend over and take it because what's the alternative?. they learned from two world wars and don't want to go 0 - 3.
rest of the Balkans will go to the chinese thinking they could pull off a neutrality because the chinese are everyone's friend ; Hungary's Orban might try and pull off an alliance with the russians(that would be bad for them imo). the greeks have been cozying up to Russia and Turkey and is building them an oil/gas terminal.
ad to those the fact that in most W-EU countries 2017 is an election year(US could really play populism in those countries and backed by CIA dirt on your politicians ... yea, gl) and you start to imagine the cluster fuck that's EU right now.
(and that's not even mentioning Turkey which is Russia's friend; Erdogan might want his Ottoman Empire back.)
so, being oblivious to the time and resources required to build an EU army(hell, you could also think of this - some of your advanced military machines would require a part or parts manufactured in US and they tell you to fuck off)and to the current state of EU is what keeps you from seeing alternatives to EU this and EU that because EU is great.
Edit: to the examples you have in spoilers i'd say that is history. if you want to read on the latest report on global arms trade see http://www.ibtimes.com/global-arms-trade-russia-us-grow-already-massive-share-major-weapons-exports-china-2317715
|
On November 13 2016 18:30 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 10:00 Toadesstern wrote:On November 13 2016 04:18 xM(Z wrote:come on men, i actually had sources: The two sides adopted strategies that were generally similar across the games played.The Red players typically made a main effort toward the Latvian capital of Riga, with a secondary attack that quickly secured the predominantly ethnic Russian areas of northeast Estonia, and then proceeded toward Tallinn. The NATO players, recognizing that they had woefully inadequate forces to mount anything resembling a forward defense, sought instead to use indigenous forces to delay Red’s advance along major axes while positioning the bulk of their forces in and around Tallinn and Riga in an attempt to sustain a minimal lodgment in and around the two capitals. The outcome was, bluntly, a disaster for NATO. Across multiple plays of the game, Russian forces eliminated or bypassed all resistance and were at the gates of or actually entering Riga, Tallinn, or both, between 36 and 60 hours after the start of hostilities.
Four factors appeared to contribute most substantially to this result.
- First and obviously, the overall correlation of forces was dramatically in Russia’s favor. Although the two sides’ raw numbers of maneuver battalions—22 for Russia and 12 for NATO—are not badly disproportionate, seven of NATO’s are those of Estonia and Latvia, which are extremely light, lack tactical mobility, and are poorly equipped for fighting against an armored opponent. Indeed, the only armor in the NATO force is the light armor in a single Stryker battalion, which is credited with having deployed from Germany during the crisis buildup prior to the conflict. NATO has no main battle tanks in the field.
Meanwhile, all Russia’s forces are motorized, mechanized, or tank units. Even their eight airborne battalions are equipped with light armored vehicles, unlike their U.S. counterparts.
- Second, Russia also enjoys an overwhelming advantage in tactical and operational fires. The Russian order of battle
includes ten artillery battalions (three equipped with tube artilability meant that they could be pinned and bypassed if the Russian players so desired. By and large, NATO’s infantry found themselves unable even to retreat successfully and were destroyed in place. noone is arguing that the EU would be able to stop that. People are saying that your assertion that the EU would panic-buy US military is pretty shady. I mean you just said a couple pages ago that, and I quote On November 11 2016 17:48 xM(Z wrote:
i hope for a US - Russia rapprochement and the ditching of the German Empire all together; worst case scenario the Balkans go to the chinese. while now basicly arguing that there's not enough troops there to stop the above scenario. The two are kind of intervened. It's not that Germany can't have more tanks, it's that neither Germany nor the population of those countries wants to have that. I mean THIS is a thing: + Show Spoiler [Wikipedia] +Exports:
Germany has fielded about 2,125 Leopard 2 main battle tanks in various versions, but following the German reunification most of the tanks have been sold. Other countries demanded newly or locally built tanks.
The Royal Netherlands Army ordered 445 Leopard 2 tanks on the second March 1979, after examining the results of the Leopard 2AV in the United States.[39] It became the first export customer of the Leopard 2 and the vehicles were delivered between July 1981 and July 1986. The Swiss army decided to purchase Leopard 2 tanks over the M1A1 Abrams after trialing both tanks between August 1981 and June 1982. The Swiss decision was made on 24 August 1983 and the funding was subsequently approved by the government in 1984.[40] Thirty-five of the tanks were delivered by Kraus-Maffei by June 1987, Eidgenössische Konstruktionswerkstätte Thun started license production of 345 additional vehicles in December 1987.
The Leopard 2 became very popular in the 1990s, when the shrinking German army offered many of its redundant Leopard 2s at a reduced price. It became successful enough in Europe that the manufacturer started calling it the Euro Leopard, despite France, Britain, and Italy all operating their own MBTs. But with further non-European orders, the name "Global-Leopard" is now used instead.[41]
After investigating the option of a locally developed replacement for the Strv 103 tank, Sweden decided to buy a foreign tank model. The Leopard 2 Improved (Leopard 2A5 prototype) won the competition against the M1A2 Abrams and the French Leclerc, after intensive test from January 1994 to June 1994, the Swedish military opted for the Leopard 2.[42] The Swedish military also evaluated the Soviet T-80U tank, but separately from the other tanks. The Swedish military found the Leopard 2 Improved to meet the military demands by 90%.[42] The M1A2 only met the Swedish requirements by 86%, whereas the Leclerc met 63%. Sweden contracted on 20 June 1994 the production of 120 Stridsvagn 122 (Swedish Leopard 2A5 subversion) with many components being made locally. The first Stridsvagn 122 was delivered on 19 December 1996. Sweden also leased and later bought a total of 160 Leopard 2A4 tanks in 1994 and 1995, the first vehicle was delivered in February 1994.[42]
Denmark bought 51 ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks after the Danish military school, the Haerens Kampskole, recommended to base the adoption of a new tank on the Swedish army trials. The tanks were delivered in 1997, but the upgrade to Leopard 2A5 level was already decided. In 2004 the Danish army bought another 18 ex-German Leopard 2 tanks.
In 1998 Greece held a competition to determine the main battle tank for the Hellenic army. The Leopard 2 Improved managed to outperform the Challenger 2E, Leclerc, M1A2 Abrams, T-80U and, T-84 and was subsequently chosen by the Greek officials. In March 2003 Greece ordered 170 Leopard 2 tanks of which 140 were locally assembled.[43][44] Greece also bought 183 Leopard 2A4 and 150 Leopard 1 tanks.[45]
Spain initially leased 109 Leopard 2A4 tanks, after Krauss-Maffei withdrew from the Lince development, a special lighter version of the Leopard 2 developed together with Santa Bárbara Sistemas. Before the end of the Lince tank, Spain already had rejected the M1A1 Abrams and the Vickers Valiant tank. After deciding to purchase the leased tanks, Santa Bárbara Sistemas acquired the licence to locally produce 219 Leopard 2A6 tanks for the Spanish army.[46]
Poland received 128 Leopard 2A4 tanks from German army stocks in 2002. In 2013 Poland ordered a further 119 ex-German Leopard 2s. Finland bought 124 used Leopard 2A4 tanks and six armoured bridge-layer Leopard 2L tanks from Germany in 2002 and 2003. The tanks served as replacement for the old Soviet-made T-55 and T-72M1. The Netherlands resold 114 of their tanks (and one turret) to Austria, 80 to Canada in 2007,[47] another 52 tanks to Norway, 37 to Portugal and finally 100 to Finland.
In 2005 Turkey ordered 298 Leopard 2 tanks from German army stocks.[48] The Leopard 2 was already chosen in 2001 after successfully competing one year earlier in the Turkish army trials against the T-84 Yatagan, Leclerc and a version of the M1A2 Abrams fitted with a German MTU diesel engine. Turkey already wanted to buy 1,000 Leopard 2 tanks in 1999, but the German government rejected such deal. Chile bought 172 ex-German Leopard 2A4 tanks and 273 Marder 1A3 IFVs in 2007. Singapore bought 96 Leopard 2 tanks from Germany in 2006.[49] Indonesia ordered 103 Leopard 2 tanks and 42 Marder 1A3 IFVs in 2013.[50] At first the export of heavy weapons to Indonesia was not allowed by the German government, due to the questionable human rights record of Indonesia. 61 of the 103 Leopard 2 tanks will be upgraded by Rheinmetall to the Leopard 2RI standard, based on Rheinmetall's Revolution modular upgrade concept.[51]
Qatar ordered 62 Leopard 2A7 tanks and 24 Panzerhaubitze 2000s in 2013[52] The delivery of the tanks started in late 2015 and the first tanks were displayed on a military parade on 18 December 2015.[53]
Saudi Arabia has shown interest in buying the Leopard 2 since the 1980s. However, due to the political circumstances and the questionable situation of human rights in Saudi Arabia, no deal was made. Saudi Arabia renewed its intention of buying Leopard 2 tanks in 2011.[54] While earlier news reports suggested an interest in buying about 200 tanks, later reports revealed an increased order of 600 to 800 tanks.[54] The German government at first approved the deal, but canceled it later due to human rights concerns and Saudi Arabia's military intervention in Bahrain.[54][55]
The Leopard 2 was also tested by the United Kingdom. In 1989 the Leopard 2 was evaluated as possible replacement for the Challenger 1 tank.[56] Ultimately the British armed forces decided to adopt the locally made Challenger 2. The Australian Army evaluated ex-Swiss Army Leopard 2s as a replacement for its Leopard 1AS tanks in 2003, but selected the M1A1 AIM instead due to easier logistics. More modern versions of the Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams, such as the Leopard 2A6 were not considered due to their higher price.[57] So I'd argue, like most other people here, that if the US were to leave NATO that that would certainly increase spending from EU nations on EU military if anything. Why would they even want to fall back on US military in such a scenario? it's because from where i'm sitting you people are blind to what actually happens in EU right now. almost all of you see EU as this loyal and unified block of good doers. i see this: Poland, Romania, Czechs, the Dutch, Sweden and i think Serbia or Slovenia are US owned; i'm talking here about their media, their political apparatus, their resources and so on. those countries would definitely buy either local or US manufactured weaponry because even if we ignore the bought loyalty, there is no doubt in my mind that after leaving NATO(IF it happens), US will offer military alliances to individual ex-EU countries and they'll take it; they'll bend over and take it because what's the alternative?. they learned from two world wars and don't want to go 0 - 3. rest of the Balkans will go to the chinese thinking they could pull off a neutrality because the chinese are everyone's friend ; Hungary's Orban might try and pull off an alliance with the russians(that would be bad for them imo). the greeks have been cozying up to Russia and Turkey and is building them an oil/gas terminal. ad to those the fact that in most W-EU countries 2017 is an election year(US could really play populism in those countries and backed by CIA dirt on your politicians ... yea, gl) and you start to imagine the cluster fuck that's EU right now. (and that's not even mentioning Turkey which is Russia's friend; Erdogan might want his Ottoman Empire back.) so, being oblivious to the time and resources required to build an EU army(hell, you could also think of this - some of your advanced military machines would require a part or parts manufactured in US and they tell you to fuck off)and to the current state of EU is what keeps you from seeing alternatives to EU this and EU that because EU is great.
what kind of weaponry are we talking about here? Do you think if russia starts to march west people (in the EU!) are going to build up their navy to fight back? Or do you think various European countries come to the conclusion that focussing on building up a bigger aircraft force would be a good thing against a nation that has some of the best anti-air weaponry around?
If we're talking about forming other alliances maybe, I don't really know what would happen about that but that's not even what you were talking about. You were talking about your scenario in which the US leaves the NATO and European nations want to build up their military for the sole purpose of being able to fight back without the US (NATO could still be in place even without the US btw but let's just let that slide) that would lead to exactly one thing: nations upgrading on the ground and that would be
1) France building their own stuff
2) UK building their own stuff (UK's a different issue because they're an island but that's beyond the point)
3) Germany building their own stuff
4) everyone else who can't afford the R&D for their own stuff buying stuff from Germany / licensing to build german tanks/whatever in their countries
I know that doesn't fit your world view since you apparently really don't like Germany and just desperately want it to fail for some reason but I didn't quote that wikipedia for nothing. So we see
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +
vs
+ Show Spoiler [pic] +
and you come to the conclusion that it will really hurt German/EU weaponry sales and really help US sales for some reason?
Edit: // about that article, like I said. I don't think anyone is going to look to upgrade their airforces if the plan is to fight back russia, which is about 50% of that article. The other 50% of the article is that Saudi Arabia is a huge buyer and buys tons of stuff from the US. And if you checked out the wiki I linked you know that they wanted to buy tanks from Germany instead, the deal was passed but got canceled due to Germany not wanting to deliver tanks to Saudi Arabia. order of 600 to 800 tanks.[54] The German government at first approved the deal, but canceled it later due to human rights concerns and Saudi Arabia's military intervention in Bahrain.[54][55] I'm not really sure that helps your position about how we CAN'T produce military equipment. It's just like I said, we don't WANT to have a lot for obvious historic reasons.
Your article itself says Though German exports have risen recently, Berlin has implemented a more restrictive arms policy in a bid to reduce its role contributing weapons that help fuel regional conflicts. . That's been quite a major issue over here
|
the US leaves the NATO and European nations want to build up their military for the sole purpose of being able to fight back without the US that was an assumption. i said they'll panic and demand/desire more weapons but thought that those desires will follow their own/individual allegiances while everyone else thought their allegiances will side/remain with the EU.
initially there was no enemy European nations would have to fight against but later, Russia was given as an example.
me:US leaving NATO could be really good for US weapon sales. Trump will leave dozens of rich countries in the dust so chances are they'll all panic and run to the nearest weapon supplier because ... Russia. nearest weapon supplier = the country they'll have alliances with(in my latest post i gave examples of such alliances which supersede EU ones, based on my opinion); also, it doesn't mean that US will be ex-NATO countries only weapon supplier but when going further, after some/most choose/side with US over Germany/France it sure as hell means that they wont go to Germany to buy tanks.
my logic - US leaves NATO, new (military)alliances emerge, many EU countries will side with US and not EU hence they'll buy US weapons.
i can't make heads or tails of your images; i see cut off things and they don't make sense or i can't see what they represent but overall, i don't see the point you're trying to make there.
if i were to guess, you're trying to show me that Germany has <abilities> as far as armament goes but i don't care about those and ignored them earlier because people(ex-EU countries) will buy from their (new)allies.
about Germany, don't take it personally; i hate everyone in matters of politics or economics. in Germany's case i started from history repeats itself so i looked at the map envisioned by Hitler for his greater Germany then looked at what Merkel wants for EU and it was pretty much the same thing: use France to get N-Africa, use Turkey to get the Middle East, use Russia to scare easterners into following you. Hitlers strategy was different obviously, he wanted to kill all of them, but the territory wanted was pretty much the same.
you could then go further in history up to the Holy Roman Empire(roughly the initial EU members without the eastern side because yea, Russia) then even further up to the western Roman Empire, factor in religion(catholicism) and with some imagination you start seeing things, patterns repeating themselves over and over.
wars fought for the same territories, by the (roughly)the same parties spawning across thousands of years.
|
There really isn't a point once he starts talking about how individual countries are US owned and buy US military equipment in the face of well...facts. Also for a "romanian" he appears to be quite devoid of how the EU operates.
Not to mention some bizarre veiled threats about the two world wars.
I really don't get what he is arguing for, except for some fantasy scenarios.
Edit: Oh shit now he is talking about Hitler and how Germany wants to conquer its surround lands. Can't make it up.
|
Merkel and Hitler want 'pretty much the same thing'? Sheesh, lay off the palinka for a while.
|
taking things out of context is an emotional response. i was talking about territories ![[image loading]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Second_world_war_europe_1941-1942_map_en.png) you could at any time make an argument on - ally of Merkel vs conquered by Hitler but i'll never say they're the same(as you imply) because ... they aren't?.
|
This thread has taken a turn for the bizarre. Is xMZ really arguing that Merkel's secret plan is to form the Drittes Reich (although I guess by now it would be the Viertes Reich)?
Stop with the reductio ad Hitleriums and pass whatever you're smoking around!
|
okay, so people leave NATO, become scared that they have to fend for themselves now and the first reaction would be...
"let's trash everything we already have in our military and pick something completely new instead of using what we already have, what we use to train our people with etc" ?
I just don't see that happening. There's Canda on that list for crying out loud. CANADA. The country directly north of the US. That must have been some mighty EU soft-power that Canada couldn't help but fall in line.
And if you really think that's going to happen that would be a massive transition over years and not some panick-buying to be okay for the next week like you claimed in your posts.
And the picture (mine) shows who uses the german version vs the US version. I cut off the lengthy text to show only the countries when that's the issue at hand. The US supplies Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Those are the deals that Germany is missing out / declined in your linked article from earlier.
I personally am not too sad that we're not delivering weapons to those and missing out because that just happened to be where most of the recent conflicts happened.
And then the other pic showing what countries get their stuff from Germany. First of all I'm personally okay with us selling weapons to most of those and if any of those countries ordered more, Germany would have no reason to decline that like it did with Saudi Arabia.
The idea that somehow the US military sales would skyrocket because suddenly Slovakia thinks it needs fucking stealthbombers while not thinking it might need ground forces just seems silly to me.
|
On November 13 2016 21:03 xM(Z wrote:taking things out of context is an emotional response. i was talking about territories + Show Spoiler +you could at any time make an argument on - ally of Merkel vs conquered by Hitler but i'll never say they're the same(as you imply) because ... they aren't?.
You were talking nonsense about territories. How has Merkel 'gotten' North Africa and 'used Turkey to get the Middle East' as you claimed? How is Germany scaring Eastern Europeans about Russia? It's entirely the other way around, Eastern Europeans are asking Western Europe to take Russia more seriously.
In fact the only common theme in your Texas sharpshooter fallacy is that Russia's neighbours have felt threatened by Russia for a long time. You are stressing one actual similarity and a half-baked comparison between the territory of the EU and those of Nazi Germany + allies (which as you can see from your own image only half matches, most which simply by virtue of being immediate neighbours), to make this entirely meaningless comparison.
I can find more similarities between you and a rock than you have provided for your theory that Merkel and Hitler want 'pretty much the same thing'. And that's not something I implied as you now claim, it was a direct quote from your previous comment.
|
On November 13 2016 21:25 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2016 21:03 xM(Z wrote:taking things out of context is an emotional response. i was talking about territories + Show Spoiler +you could at any time make an argument on - ally of Merkel vs conquered by Hitler but i'll never say they're the same(as you imply) because ... they aren't?. You were talking nonsense about territories. How has Merkel 'gotten' North Africa and 'used Turkey to get the Middle East' as you claimed? How is Germany scaring Eastern Europeans about Russia? It's entirely the other way around, Eastern Europeans are asking Western Europe to take Russia more seriously. In fact the only common theme in your Texas sharpshooter fallacy is that Russia's neighbours have felt threatened by Russia for a long time. You are stressing one actual similarity and a half-baked comparison between the territory of the EU and that of Nazi Germany + allies (which as you can see from your own image only half matches, most which simply by virtue of being immediate neighbours), to make this entirely meaningless comparison. I can find more similarities between you and a rock than you have provided for your theory that Merkel and Hitler want 'pretty much the same thing'. And that's not something I implied as you now claim, it was a direct quote from your previous comment. factor in time frames dude, then based on those break it down in contexts. realize then that what you set up to do is not what you end up doing because <reasons>, <actors>, <happenings> ...
everything i said(except the trans-history associations) has somewhere on this forums a post on it with quotes from <other than me> sources.
like how prior or immediately after the Syrian rebellion, some Turkish military figures were given key leading roles in NATO command, how Turkey(soon to be in EU back then) prepared a religious integration of would be muslims(immigrants) to EU by state financing dozens of mosques across Balkans, EU investments in Turkey and in which sectors they were made, plans on energy routes all including Turkey, the fact that the shit in Syria was started by Turkey, Qatar, UAE and not by Saudis(they joined later to fuck things even more) and a whole lot more i'm surely missing now.
and this: Eastern Europeans are asking Western Europe to take Russia more seriously. on which you and kawiz. are pinning your hopes and dreams on as being a NATO integration excuse is total bullshit. look at the evolution of the polls and you'll see that initially people were cautious in picking sides while being pro-self determination but after a while, after the media was established, people went all cuckoo hating on things.
|
On November 13 2016 22:04 xM(Z wrote:factor in time frames dude, then based on those break it down in contexts. realize then that what you set up to do is not what you end up doing because <reasons>, <actors>, <happenings> ... lol are you writing from a script or something? What is this?
|
On November 13 2016 21:21 Toadesstern wrote:
okay, so people leave NATO, become scared that they have to fend for themselves now and the first reaction would be...
"let's trash everything we already have in our military and pick something completely new instead of using what we already have, what we use to train our people with etc" ?
I just don't see that happening. There's Canda on that list for crying out loud. CANADA. The country directly north of the US. That must have been some mighty EU soft-power that Canada couldn't help but fall in line.
And if you really think that's going to happen that would be a massive transition over years and not some panick-buying to be okay for the next week like you claimed in your posts.
And the picture (mine) shows who uses the german version vs the US version. I cut off the lengthy text to show only the countries when that's the issue at hand. The US supplies Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Morocco. Those are the deals that Germany is missing out / declined in your linked article from earlier.
I personally am not too sad that we're not delivering weapons to those and missing out because that just happened to be where most of the recent conflicts happened.
And then the other pic showing what countries get their stuff from Germany. First of all I'm personally okay with us selling weapons to most of those and if any of those countries ordered more, Germany would have no reason to decline that like it did with Saudi Arabia.
The idea that somehow the US military sales would skyrocket because suddenly Slovakia thinks it needs fucking stealthbombers while not thinking it might need ground forces just seems silly to me. a while back Canada withdrew its jets from the Western Coalition fighting in middle east and is trying to play the neutral card now. i can't tell how will that pan out; it depends on how bad the US <-> EU shakedowns will get. the costs already reached multi billions and lead to scrapping a trade deal.
in general, even if it'll get really bad, i think no one believes it'll be un-fixable or will last forever.
you are linking/associating me replying to other posts, posts that started a dick measurement contest on size(military size), with me continuing my initial idea. those are not related or just barely under serious "if and buts".
that bolded part follows from the above but to reply to it: US and Slovakia become military allies; US brings its own troops and military equipment in Slovakia; no one fucks with the slovaks now because they'll be fucking with US.
while this friendship lasts, slovak tax payers pay the overinflated prices of american weapons.
|
On November 13 2016 22:04 xM(Z wrote:
like how prior or immediately after the Syrian rebellion, some Turkish military figures were given key leading roles in NATO command, how Turkey(soon to be in EU back then) prepared a religious integration of would be muslims(immigrants) to EU by state financing dozens of mosques across Balkans, EU investments in Turkey and in which sectors they were made, plans on energy routes all including Turkey, the fact that the shit in Syria was started by Turkey, Qatar, UAE and not by Saudis(they joined later to fuck things even more) and a whole lot more i'm surely missing now.
This is nothing more than a string of "coincidence? I think not" material, most of which doesn't tie in with the point you were trying to make
-EU investments in Turkey, nothing unusual here, between the start of the Syrian uprising and now they haven't reached the level they were at pre-financial crisis.
-The Turkish government is funding mosques all over the place, including in the US. Wish they were more secular but that's another topic
-energy routes, where else would they go through? A massive detour through Africa? The whole point of them was to create less dependency on Russia so they can't use gas prices as leverage, the only option was Turkey.
-the 'shit in Syria' was started by Syrians, Turkey & Qatar entered much later. You can say that Assad's opposition to their pipeline is the reason Qatar got involved, but that's about as far as this goes
-not sure what Turkish military figures given leading NATO command roles you are referring to, Turkey is no more represented in NATO's upper structures than we are. Not that it wouldn't make perfect sense for the member closest to the conflict area of the past 15 years to play a bigger role.
None of this is telling me anything about Germany trying to 'get the Middle East', actually none of this tells me anything about Germany at all. To suggest that they're somehow orchestrating all this, with correlations as far away from them and as thin as those is unconvincing to say the least.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LnI6cmA.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/wjKrv3G.png)
