|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On June 25 2022 21:41 Magic Powers wrote:
[
NATO has never started a war, much less committed genocide or systematic killing of cilians. I don't know what sources you're relying on, but they've been feeding you lies.
If a NATO member shows aggression against another country, other NATO members are not bound to come to their aid. This is because NATO is not an offensive alliance, but a defensive pact.
NATO members are bound to come to the defense of a NATO member who's home soil (not property) is attacked by another country.
Do you forget the Kosovo war in 1999? NATO bombed Chinese Embassy，5 missles, we have never forget that.
Sorry but in Chinese's mind, NATO = the US. And if it is a defensive pact, why it expand several times in east europe? You europeans are so eager to engage the Russians? I don't think so.
Why China should donate the refugees? Who should Pay for this problem? Russians?Americans?European? Not us anyway.
|
why did Nato expand east? because those countries asked to join to protect themselves from Russia.
Which Russia has now proven was a good idea.
I see that line of reasoning so often and it just never makes sense.
Countries asking to join a defensive alliance to protect themselves from another aggressive country is exactly what defensive alliances are for, and the only reason to be threatened by that happening is if your an aggressive country looking to invade neighbours.
Russia invading Ukraine to stop Nato expansion is just justifying why Ukraine wanted Nato protection.
|
On June 26 2022 01:11 SSIII wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2022 21:41 Magic Powers wrote:
[
NATO has never started a war, much less committed genocide or systematic killing of cilians. I don't know what sources you're relying on, but they've been feeding you lies.
If a NATO member shows aggression against another country, other NATO members are not bound to come to their aid. This is because NATO is not an offensive alliance, but a defensive pact.
NATO members are bound to come to the defense of a NATO member who's home soil (not property) is attacked by another country. Do you forget the Kosovo war in 1999? NATO bombed Chinese Embassy，5 missles, we have never forget that. Sorry but in Chinese's mind, NATO = the US. And if it is a defensive pact, why it expand several times in east europe? You europeans are so eager to engage the Russians? I don't think so. Why China should donate the refugees? Who should Pay for this problem? Russians?Americans?European? Not us anyway.
The Kosovo war wasn't started by NATO, not even by a NATO member.
NATO intervened in 1999 - a year after the war started - and as a consequence the conflict ended a few months later. Around 500 civilians were killed (not targeted) by NATO, while the total cost of civilian life (killed or missing) over the whole war was around 11 000.
So even this controversial intervention by NATO doesn't support the claims you made. You can criticize NATO, that's alright. But the claims you made are way off.
|
I mean Nato definitely isnt as innocent as you think it is... there are countless examples like Iraq. Fabrication of evidence, sale of iraqi oil and natural resources to American tycoons... the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians
User was banned for this post.
|
On June 26 2022 04:13 Inttrav wrote:
I mean Nato definitely isnt as innocent as you think it is... there are countless examples like Iraq. Fabrication of evidence, sale of iraqi oil and natural resources to American tycoons... the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians Iraq wasn't Nato.
|
That is pretty substantial...
|
Seems unattainable, unless they reinstate the mandatory draft at the age of 18 like it used to be in the past. If they want to have 400k professional soldiers i don't even know where will they find enough willing recruits in Poland. This would also mean huge purchases of equipment, vehicles etc.
|
On June 26 2022 04:37 PoulsenB wrote:Seems unattainable, unless they reinstate the mandatory draft at the age of 18 like it used to be in the past. If they want to have 400k professional soldiers i don't even know where will they find enough willing recruits in Poland. This would also mean huge purchases of equipment, vehicles etc.
It is a significant amount, but I would argue a good choice if they have a real threat on their borders.
South Korea and Israel still would have a significant larger military per capita. I think a fairly good metric for military capability is population * percentage of gdp military spending for a conventional war (not perfect, but definitely better than comparing absolute spending) . EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
Maybe 300k is a more realistic number to aim for, but good to see the threat being taken seriously. I do agree that their number is already larger than the western average, and to reach the 300-400k will likely require a nudge of some sort to increase their manpower... But it's still a measured number.
It is disappointing that the world is still at a point that sizeable spending needs to go towards these things, but it's the world we live in.
|
On June 26 2022 04:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2022 04:13 Inttrav wrote:
I mean Nato definitely isnt as innocent as you think it is... there are countless examples like Iraq. Fabrication of evidence, sale of iraqi oil and natural resources to American tycoons... the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians Iraq wasn't Nato.
People seem to have a really hard time understanding what is and what is not NATO. It is kind of weird.
|
On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2022 04:37 PoulsenB wrote:Seems unattainable, unless they reinstate the mandatory draft at the age of 18 like it used to be in the past. If they want to have 400k professional soldiers i don't even know where will they find enough willing recruits in Poland. This would also mean huge purchases of equipment, vehicles etc. It is a significant amount, but I would argue a good choice if they have a real threat on their borders. South Korea and Israel still would have a significant larger military per capita. I think a fairly good metric for military capability is population * percentage of gdp military spending for a conventional war (not perfect, but definitely better than comparing absolute spending) . EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing. Maybe 300k is a more realistic number to aim for, but good to see the threat being taken seriously. I do agree that their number is already larger than the western average, and to reach the 300-400k will likely require a nudge of some sort to increase their manpower... But it's still a measured number. It is disappointing that the world is still at a point that sizeable spending needs to go towards these things, but it's the world we live in. I don't think doubling your army size without conscription isn't realistic either.
|
I think Putin's plan is to raise inflation e.g. via oil, grain exports, etc, to alienate people to protest against government and to weaken sanctions as a result. It's who blinks first.. Hopefully resolve to withstand is stronger or otherwise Ukraine is lost.
I do hope sanctions remain at least for a few years or until Ukraine regains land so Putin gets what he deserves.
|
G7 will ban Russian gold exports (making the roughly 600bn RU holds in gold reserves more illiquid).
|
On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%.
China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it.
So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is.
|
On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is.
What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries.
That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well.
|
|
|
On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well.
What??? Russia can't even roll through Ukraine 1 on 1.
|
On June 27 2022 04:38 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well. What??? Russia can't even roll through Ukraine 1 on 1.
Not sure if satire or not, given how delusional some people on this forum are. The only reason Ukr is able to hang on is because of massive external support.
|
On June 27 2022 04:49 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 04:38 Starlightsun wrote:On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well. What??? Russia can't even roll through Ukraine 1 on 1. Not sure if satire or not, given how delusional some people on this forum are. The only reason Ukr is able to hang on is because of massive external support.
In munitions and equipment. France/Germany would get similar support.
|
On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well.
You're right that comparing absolute numbers doesn't always make sense but using %gdp * population isn't much better. You can just use PPP. Here's an article I linked earlier which explains it well: https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/why-russian-military-expenditure-is-much-higher-than-commonly-understood-as-is-chinas/
|
On June 27 2022 04:49 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2022 04:38 Starlightsun wrote:On June 27 2022 04:15 FiWiFaKi wrote:On June 27 2022 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On June 26 2022 05:10 FiWiFaKi wrote:
EU having roughly 3x the population of Russia, but roughly 1/3rd the gdp% spending puts them on pretty even footing.
UK has higher military budget than Russia. For UK that's 2.2% GDP while for Russia it's 4.1%. China has 5x the military spending of Russia, but for them it's only 1.7% GDP. For smaller countries Japan has about 80% of Russia's military budget but only spends 1.1% of their GDP on it. So, having big and modern military doesn't necessarily require huge spending GDP-wise. It all hinges on how good your economy is. What you're saying is exactly what I'm arguing against. Absolute spending in terms in absolute billion dollars isn't a good measure. Gdp per capita is a way better measure, because Russia is able to pay their personnel way less, and is able to make tanks for way cheaper than the US because they can pay their employees less. That's why %gdp * population is a way better measure than the number you're using. At least for industrialized countries. That's why Wikipedia lists % of gdp as well as absolute spending. For example Russia has similar spending to both France or Germany, but I have no doubt that Russia would roll through either of them 1 on 1. And a country like Turkey, even though they spend 25% of Germany or France have a military on par if not stronger than them. Sure, France likely has stronger special operation power, but when it comes to all out war, with only 200k troops, that spending doesn't transfer well. What??? Russia can't even roll through Ukraine 1 on 1. Not sure if satire or not, given how delusional some people on this forum are. The only reason Ukr is able to hang on is because of massive external support.
Well complete 1 on 1 in a vacuum is just an absurd hypothetical. How is Russia going to "roll through" France without at least having some support of surrounding countries to stage attacks from? Even by sea they would need cooperation of other countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
