Merkel : U.S. as global rival threat that, along with China and Russia, Europe must unite against

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Something tells me that that was glenn's attempt at making a funny by being acting dumb.

Russia has not represented a credible threat to militarily invade western Europe since the 1950s. Germany hasn’t been a threat to invade anyone since the 1940s. Thinking that absent NATO, or U.S. based in Germany, or the U.S. essentially making defense spending by Germany and company redundant are as outdated as Deustchemarks. The idea that world war is imminent unless the U.S. maintains in perpetuity the same habits as from the 1950s is as wrong as saying the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. We have been moving for decades from larger conflicts of military forces and technologies to smaller regionalized fights via unconventional warfare, non-state actors, and non military means like cyberwar, disinformation, and IP theft. NATO and the 1950s thinking and spending patterns it represents are the Maginot Line of the 21st century. We need to stop our current practice of building of the weapons, alliances, and strategy of yesterday and focus on the way future conflicts will be fought. That sure as hell ain’t gonna be Russian tanks flowing through the Fulda Gap or battleships lobbing shells at each other in the Pacific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Trump's method of dealing with NATO & the EU has been bullying. That's beyond obvious. It's a hit with his base in this country, of course, because they don't really think straight after decades of relentless GOP agitprop & lies. A mindless "Fuck you, Libtards!" is their way of dealing with anybody not them.

It's no way to deal with people who have been our friends & allies since the end of WW2.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Russia has not represented a credible threat to militarily invade western Europe since the 1950s. Germany hasn’t been a threat to invade anyone since the 1940s. Thinking that absent NATO, or U.S. based in Germany, or the U.S. essentially making defense spending by Germany and company redundant are as outdated as Deustchemarks. The idea that world war is imminent unless the U.S. maintains in perpetuity the same habits as from the 1950s is as wrong as saying the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. We have been moving for decades from larger conflicts of military forces and technologies to smaller regionalized fights via unconventional warfare, non-state actors, and non military means like cyberwar, disinformation, and IP theft. NATO and the 1950s thinking and spending patterns it represents are the Maginot Line of the 21st century. We need to stop our current practice of building of the weapons, alliances, and strategy of yesterday and focus on the way future conflicts will be fought. That sure as hell ain’t gonna be Russian tanks flowing through the Fulda Gap or battleships lobbing shells at each other in the Pacific.

Please. Putin's aggression in Georgia & Ukraine makes the Baltic states & former Warsaw pact countries very happy to be NATO members. They can't hope to stand against an aggressive Russia on their own. Thugs gonna thug, given the opportunity.
 

DarthKyrie

Golden Member
Jul 11, 2016
1,545
1,305
146
Russia has not represented a credible threat to militarily invade western Europe since the 1950s. Germany hasn’t been a threat to invade anyone since the 1940s. Thinking that absent NATO, or U.S. based in Germany, or the U.S. essentially making defense spending by Germany and company redundant are as outdated as Deustchemarks. The idea that world war is imminent unless the U.S. maintains in perpetuity the same habits as from the 1950s is as wrong as saying the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. We have been moving for decades from larger conflicts of military forces and technologies to smaller regionalized fights via unconventional warfare, non-state actors, and non military means like cyberwar, disinformation, and IP theft. NATO and the 1950s thinking and spending patterns it represents are the Maginot Line of the 21st century. We need to stop our current practice of building of the weapons, alliances, and strategy of yesterday and focus on the way future conflicts will be fought. That sure as hell ain’t gonna be Russian tanks flowing through the Fulda Gap or battleships lobbing shells at each other in the Pacific.

We agree on this. NATO is going to fall apart eventually with the rise of all the Nationalist movements in Europe.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
70,211
28,916
136
So we should pull the plug today. Europe can pay for their own army's.
ss.png


So appropriate on different levels.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,109
136
So we should pull the plug today. Europe can pay for their own army's.
We’ve fought two world wars in Europe, it’s much, much less expensive in $$s and lives to ensure a stable Europe. Do schools even teach history anymore @#$&*%!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Didn't use to be very keen on NATO. It helped bring Putinism about by expanding so aggressively instead of winding itself up after the Warsaw Pact went away (after all, it was always supposed to be a defensive alliance against the Warsaw Pact - so why did it continue when the threat that justified it no longer existed?). But, by having done so much to bring Putin to power, it's cunningly created the strongest argument for it's own continued existence.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
We’ve fought two world wars in Europe, it’s much, much less expensive in $$s and lives to ensure a stable Europe. Do schools even teach history anymore @#$&*%!

Don't need no steenking Allies! We'll go it alone! Merricuh First!
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,538
759
146
If you want the US to stop projecting power over there that's fine. I'm all for cutting the military budget to about a third of what it is or less and I agree with you about using that for health care or really anything else instead.

While I doubt many Americans would agree with us on this at least it's an honest position. It's pretty irritating to see people in the US acting like we're doing other countries some sort of favor by stationing troops in them. We're not - we're advancing our interests.

This is nonsensical.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
So we should pull the plug today. Europe can pay for their own army's.

Pay for their own army's what? Their guns? Their spiffy stylish uniforms?

Downvoted for misuse of apostrophe. I'm actually confused/ambivalent about the issue itself. I don't believe this map is a result of US generosity and benevolence. But at the same time it is true that Germany has probably avoided wasting quite a lot of its national wealth by not spending UK or US levels of GDP on the military, and that must have helped its economy over the decades.

The left has never been much of a fan of NATO. I remain unenthusiastic about it. But, dammit, Putin. It's one of those issues where I'm not sure whether I agree with the left or with liberals. To be on the same side as Trump is not a good place to find oneself.

https://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-us-has-a-military-presence/

(I thought the US had bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan that aren't on that map, but seems I'm way out of date and those bases were evicted a decade ago)

I'm also bemused by how Brexiters try and make a big scare-story out of the extremely vague proposals for an EU army from the likes of Macron. I'm very doubtful it's going to happen but also not at all convinced it would be a bad thing if it did. A further complication is the likes of Macron have their own political interests in pushing such ideas. French anti-Americanism has a particular history and meaning of its own, plus everything has some relationship to the rivalries between the major EU countries, I don't think anything can be taken at face-value. Likewise Merkal's comments. There are always wheels-within-wheels with these issues.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,636
8,522
136
Russia has not represented a credible threat to militarily invade western Europe since the 1950s. Germany hasn’t been a threat to invade anyone since the 1940s. Thinking that absent NATO, or U.S. based in Germany, or the U.S. essentially making defense spending by Germany and company redundant are as outdated as Deustchemarks. The idea that world war is imminent unless the U.S. maintains in perpetuity the same habits as from the 1950s is as wrong as saying the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. We have been moving for decades from larger conflicts of military forces and technologies to smaller regionalized fights via unconventional warfare, non-state actors, and non military means like cyberwar, disinformation, and IP theft. NATO and the 1950s thinking and spending patterns it represents are the Maginot Line of the 21st century. We need to stop our current practice of building of the weapons, alliances, and strategy of yesterday and focus on the way future conflicts will be fought. That sure as hell ain’t gonna be Russian tanks flowing through the Fulda Gap or battleships lobbing shells at each other in the Pacific.

There should be a 'sounds plausible' vote option. I'm not sure I 'agree', but I think it's a reasonable argument.
 

cytg111

Lifer
Mar 17, 2008
23,993
13,519
136
Russia has not represented a credible threat to militarily invade western Europe since the 1950s. Germany hasn’t been a threat to invade anyone since the 1940s. Thinking that absent NATO, or U.S. based in Germany, or the U.S. essentially making defense spending by Germany and company redundant are as outdated as Deustchemarks. The idea that world war is imminent unless the U.S. maintains in perpetuity the same habits as from the 1950s is as wrong as saying the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. We have been moving for decades from larger conflicts of military forces and technologies to smaller regionalized fights via unconventional warfare, non-state actors, and non military means like cyberwar, disinformation, and IP theft. NATO and the 1950s thinking and spending patterns it represents are the Maginot Line of the 21st century. We need to stop our current practice of building of the weapons, alliances, and strategy of yesterday and focus on the way future conflicts will be fought. That sure as hell ain’t gonna be Russian tanks flowing through the Fulda Gap or battleships lobbing shells at each other in the Pacific.

How are you going so safeguard your way of life? Western life. Democracy?
The future of conflict, IMO, is going to be fought over ideas and trade dominance, and whomever loses will be assimilated.
1. If the major powers has nukes, noone will fire them. Mutual assured destruction.
2. If you dont have nukes or be in a major alliance treaty. Tanks are free to roll. You see this in Ukraine.
You guys are 300 million people on a planet of 7 billion. Wake the fuck up. NATO is the best fucking card you have on hand. Unless you like to pick up Russian or Mandarin.
EU + US ~ 700-800 million people ..Now we are getting read to make a dent..
We need to grow, not dismantle.
EU and US should IMO be in a free trade union right now. Open markets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Ajay