Poll shows many Europeans do not support providing military aid to a fellow NATO ally

[GTaudiophile]

I saw that PEW study yesterday.

About 60% of Germans believe the US would step in should Russia invade a NATO ally. About the same number would not support using German resources to step in.

 

[piasabird]

USA should just pull back and wait till China and Russia try to take over all of Asia and Europe. Tell them we are pulling out and they have to pay us 2 trillion a year to stay.

 

[piasabird]

Let all of Europe crash and burn. Russia would crumble trying to control all of Europe.

 

[senseamp]

Russia can't even control pro-Russian separatists in Lugansk and Donetsk in Ukraine. It's a paper tiger.

 

[blastingcap]

I saw that PEW study yesterday.

About 60% of Germans believe the US would step in should Russia invade a NATO ally. About the same number would not support using German resources to step in.

USA should just pull back and wait till China and Russia try to take over all of Asia and Europe. Tell them we are pulling out and they have to pay us 2 trillion a year to stay.

And make it 2 trillion US dollars, not their Euro which will fall apart eventually.

 

[cabri]

Russia can't even control pro-Russian separatists in Lugansk and Donetsk in Ukraine. It's a paper tiger.

They claim that they are not trying to control and/or supply.
Yet they control Crimea and most of the Ukrainian Navy.

 

[senseamp]

They claim that they are not trying to control and/or supply.
Yet they control Crimea and most of the Ukrainian Navy.

They control Crimea because most Crimeans are Russians who want it to be controlled by Russia. That's not going to be the case in NATO countries.

 

[norseamd]

Putin and the Russians are a major problem to NATO and all the countries around Muscovy.

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=191217

 

[Jhhnn]

Could we get a little more fear mongering over here? We need to move this military hardware!

Russia! and China! and Iran! Oh My!

It's a good thing Putin isn't nearly as delusional as some of our posters-

http://www.mintpressnews.com/putin-...-difference-between-russia-and-the-us/206343/

 

[flexy]

Why do you think an anti-war resentment, say in a country like Germany is so unusual?
In the case of a hypothetical big military conflict aka WWIII, you all KNOW that Europe and Germany in particular would be the first country to be nuked/obliterated before one bomb even falls on the US. And Germans know that too

Alone from its geography and size, war on US grounds is pretty much impossible and even in a major conflict it's more or less impossible to overrun/destroy/take the US. While in EU, all it would take is three nukes to basically make the entire area inhabitable.

You might be sitting there watching news about "some conflict" 1000s of miles away in countries most people in the US won't even know where they're located on a map. From that point of view it's "easy" to talk and wonder about the unwillingness of European countries to immediately engage in a conflict...mind you the one and only time the US saw something "war-like" in their own country was 9/11. Imagine Russia would be South America, just right across the border...and the US not larger than Texas. Then you would possibly also first think about ALL other options before jumping into conflict.

Germans know that nothing good would arise from a conflict and that so or so, the result would be the destruction of Germany and probably entire Europe, whether they aid other countries or not. There is no "winner" and the chances for a "successful outcome" (whatever that might be) of a war in the midst of EU is really slim. This is an entire different situation to you guys in the US where you can *choose* to engage in some conflict, 10.000s of miles away at the other side of the globe where you know that your country LIKELY won't be affected by it.

 

[flexy]

>>
Would NATO sacrifice an eastern European country to avoid war?
>>

Would NATO sacrifice a country like Romania, Croatia, Serbia etc. to avoid war in Germany, UK, France etc?

Of course it defies NATO's purpose but I think this would be possible, if not likely.

 

[irishScott]

Why do you think an anti-war resentment, say in a country like Germany is so unusual?
In the case of a hypothetical big military conflict aka WWIII, you all KNOW that Europe and Germany in particular would be the first country to be nuked/obliterated before one bomb even falls on the US. And Germans know that too

Alone from its geography and size, war on US grounds is pretty much impossible and even in a major conflict it's more or less impossible to overrun/destroy/take the US. While in EU, all it would take is three nukes to basically make the entire area inhabitable.

You might be sitting there watching news about "some conflict" 1000s of miles away in countries most people in the US won't even know where they're located on a map. From that point of view it's "easy" to talk and wonder about the unwillingness of European countries to immediately engage in a conflict...mind you the one and only time the US saw something "war-like" in their own country was 9/11. Imagine Russia would be South America, just right across the border...and the US not larger than Texas. Then you would possibly also first think about ALL other options before jumping into conflict.

Germans know that nothing good would arise from a conflict and that so or so, the result would be the destruction of Germany and probably entire Europe, whether they aid other countries or not. There is no "winner" and the chances for a "successful outcome" (whatever that might be) of a war in the midst of EU is really slim. This is an entire different situation to you guys in the US where you can *choose* to engage in some conflict, 10.000s of miles away at the other side of the globe where you know that your country LIKELY won't be affected by it.

No one's talking nuclear war, we're talking if Russia tries to invade, say Lithuania with the same semi-covert hybrid tactics they used in the Crimea, or a conventional military invasion.

Even if we were talking nuclear war though, the US has bases all over Germany:

You really think the Russians would just leave the Germans alone and ignore all those bases, just because Germany went back on its word and sat out of the conflict? In any case, a nuclear war with Russia is back to MAD, with thousands of nukes flying. The US mainland might be safer for a few minutes while the missiles fly further, but it couldn't escape nuclear holocaust.

 

[Bock]

If Russia where to hit a Nato country, they wouldn't do it alone. They would try to get China with them. Anyways, conventional warfare, I think Russia would give Europe a run for their money. Once the US gets involved, Russia loses badly.

 

[davmat787]

How did such ignorant optimism work out for most of the US military campaigns of the past 50 years?

Wishing it to be so it will be a success. Snap the fingers. Simple........... Dumb.

I repeat:

WWII: Alone, just what could have the Western states of Europe done against Germany and Italy? An offensive for what gains?

The facts were, that in 1939, those states lacked the military strength to check Germany, let alone defeat them. The facts of WWII, were that a defeat of the European Axis was not possible without Russia on their side. That was not the case until much later.

Beyond that, France and Britain were well aware that any chance against Germany was the hope to delay their further aggression. No other option was practical nor possible. Excluding Russia, Germany was the big boy on the continent. Time was necessary to build up their strengths, and even then, there would never be an ability for them alone to defeat Germany. As it stood, the German conquering of France was hardly a cakewalk, with the French inflicting over 50,000 deaths upon the invading German forces.

You keep pointing out how the defeat of Germany was only possible due to Russia, but I haven't seen you mention the Lend-Lease program of the U.S. that made Russia capable of even facing Germany.

Through this program, Russia received from the U.S. over $11 billion in supplies such as over 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 12,000 armored vehicles, including 7,000 tanks, over 11,000 aircraft, and some 1.75 million tons of food. Not to mention all the boots and other gear for individual soldiers.

Without this program Russia was totally incapable of fighting Germany anywhere outside of Russia, and Russia couldn't field any level of mechanized warfare previous to this influx of modern military equipment.

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US.

Curious you keep making the point of Russia being instrumental to the defeat of Germany without mentioning the program that even made it possible.

 

[davmat787]

>>
Would NATO sacrifice an eastern European country to avoid war?
>>

Would NATO sacrifice a country like Romania, Croatia, Serbia etc. to avoid war in Germany, UK, France etc?

Of course it defies NATO's purpose but I think this would be possible, if not likely.

We sacrificed Hungary in 1956 to those Russian bastards. The CIA was broadcasting in Hungary before and during the uprising that briefly drove the Russians out and restored freedom to Hungary, often the CIAs broadcasts implied that the Hungarians only needed to start the uprising and briefly hold on, and the U.S. and the West would be along before the Russians could mount a reply in force.

Hungary was left to face the Russians brutal retaliation on their own, the U.S. and the west really let them down and is a very embarrassing and rarely mentioned bit of history. Had we supported Hungary with what they started, who knows how other occupied countries behind the iron curtain would have reacted.

 

[cabri]

They control Crimea because most Crimeans are Russians who want it to be controlled by Russia. That's not going to be the case in NATO countries.

They seeded Crimea with Russians when they first took control under the Soviet system.

There was no previous outcry from Crimea until Russia started the instability/unrest. No request for political autonomy like Russia started in the Eastern section of the Ukraine.

Russia was caught interfering with Crimea, so they tried the other options for the Eastern area. And that has caused multiple loss of life/property and again bad press for Russia with their transparent denials on non-interference.

 

[Orignal Earl]

You keep pointing out how the defeat of Germany was only possible due to Russia, but I haven't seen you mention the Lend-Lease program of the U.S. that made Russia capable of even facing Germany.

Through this program, Russia received from the U.S. over $11 billion in supplies such as over 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 12,000 armored vehicles, including 7,000 tanks, over 11,000 aircraft, and some 1.75 million tons of food. Not to mention all the boots and other gear for individual soldiers.

Without this program Russia was totally incapable of fighting Germany anywhere outside of Russia, and Russia couldn't field any level of mechanized warfare previous to this influx of modern military equipment.

Roughly 17.5 million tons of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies, and food were shipped from the Western Hemisphere to the USSR, 94% coming from the US.

Curious you keep making the point of Russia being instrumental to the defeat of Germany without mentioning the program that even made it possible.

If the US didn't step up, I'm sure Canada would of upped it's part
Canada supplied the US with over a billion in defense materials and services during WW2
Canada was instrumental to the US being able to fight WW2

Don't even get started on how much uranium Canada supplied to the US to keep the Russians at bay after the war

 

[Genx87]

They control Crimea because most Crimeans are Russians who want it to be controlled by Russia. That's not going to be the case in NATO countries.

Not this shit again.

 

[cabri]

They control Crimea because most Crimeans are Russians who want it to be controlled by Russia.

Not this shit again.

Selective timeline - remember, this poster supported all the Russian intervention as well as the rigged referendum.:|

If he had been around at the time, situations in Hungary and Czechoslovakia situations would have also been justified to him :thumbsdown:

 

[davmat787]

If the US didn't step up, I'm sure Canada would of upped it's part
Canada supplied the US with over a billion in defense materials and services during WW2
Canada was instrumental to the US being able to fight WW2

Don't even get started on how much uranium Canada supplied to the US to keep the Russians at bay after the war

In the 1940's Canada had the industrial base and workers capable of producing the 94% of lend-lease military equipment and other materials that I mentioned above? I don't think so, and I don't understand what your point is anyway.

I am not dismissing Canada's contributions at all, I just don't think Canada was physically capable of that 94% as you imply.

Do you disagree with the impact of the lend-lease program on the Russian military? And do you think the claims you make in regards to the Russians defeating the Germans would have been possible without the lend-lease program?

I merely pointed out the lend-lease program as a historical tidbit, don't understand your Canada comment but I know why you made it, it's par for your course.

 

[Fayd]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/me...g/_83517450_russian_military_conflict_624.png

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33072093


Surprising how many do not support one of NATO's core principles in Europe: "An armed attack on one… shall be considered an attack against them all". Even though NATO was made to help European countries drawn into a fight with Russia.

Its amazing how high support is in US and Canada but how low it is in Germany and France. Imagine how hard it would be for NATO to send troops to help its allies in Eastern Europe if Germany does not support it.

luckily, they don't have a choice.

 

[chucky2]

So the US let's genocides happen in Africa to teach Europeans lessons about defending their countries?
You crazy Americans

Wut?

 

[chucky2]

Not exactly. And I doubt their social services are why they are not spending sufficient money on their militaries.

What is not exactly? The US was mired in Afghanistan and Iraq at the time and whiners were complaining about how the US was causing civilian casualties in Iraq (responding to Muslims conducting operations in civilian Muslim areas, i.e. intentionally causing civilian casualties). TheRestOfTheWorld was so f*cking smart, they had ample opportunity to show how to do it. Well, they did. They waited and waited and waited and waited until tens? hundreds? of thousands were butchered, then finally attempted to do something. And then, LOL, couldn't get the UN forces they finally sent there 14 F'ing helicopters. That's how TROTW rolls...

...which means, that's how well our NATO partners can handle Mil shit. If it wasn't for the US (deciding on our own to spend shittons on our MIC), EU would be effectively a paper tiger if RU ever got its shit together. Does this worry EU? Nah. They're not worried while they spend tons on civilian stuff, they don't need to fund their Mil to the levels needed to stop RU, because they've got US doing the heavy lifting.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I doubt Germany is afraid of Russia attacking them, so that doesn't really factor in as Russia would have its ass kicked in short order. The question isn't if the core members of NATO would protect each other, it's if the new Baltic members can count on the same protection. I imagine they probably can, albeit not quite in the same way as Germany could. for example: if the 'little green men' showed up and started occupying places in eastern Germany, Russia would feel the military pain, and quickly. That level of response is not guaranteed for the Baltics maybe.

Yep.

The way the poll question was phrased it's clear they were referring to nations like Latvia and Estonia. I wouldn't be surprised if many respondents had Ukraine in mind too (although they're not a NATO member).

I'm not surprised Europeans seem reluctant to engage Russia in war over one of these countries.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally Posted by irishScott View Post
Yeah, and if those polls are any indication they're repeating the cycle. Hitler was left unchecked for almost a decade, rolling over lesser European allies because Europeans didn't want another WWI. They could have nipped WWII in the bud if they'd showed some decisive initiative. Now they seem to want to do the same with Putin.

Ain't your cultural revisionism fun? I'm assuming it's a common ignorant Yank trait to be incapable of accurately applying lessons of history to contemporary times.. All is easy -- where there's a will there's a way.

How's that worked out for you in multiple wars of choice over the past 50 years?

WWII: Alone, just what could have the Western states of Europe done against Germany and Italy? An offensive for what gains?
-snip-

Hitler himself is said to have thought had France lived up to its treaty obligation and marched to prevent the Nazi's from entering Austria WWII would have been over before it even started.

And it's not that Germany would have been destroyed or anything so dramatic. It's that the Nazi Party would have been doomed and tossed from power.

So yeah, Europe had a chance to 'nip it in the bud'.

Fern