Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well that's probably going to result in a deployment of troops equivalent to a corps in the Karelian region with rocket and missile emplacements being positioned westward. It puts their capital of Helsinki in the cross-hairs and that's not something that I envy. It's Finland's prerogative what they choose to do though I'm curious to see what the allocation of resources to their defence budget entail. Far as I'm aware it's 2% of their GDP right now but likely to increase.
Oh great, because Russia destroyed her relations with dozens of western democracies, she has to use more and more troops to guard her western borders while ignoring the real long-term threat to Russia in the East.
LOLOLOLOL yeh it is ludicrous. If RU loses men and equipment, its for a purpose. The other side will likely have losses too. America on the other is simply giving away equipment for nothing in return, and paying private contractors to sit around and babysit god knows what like in Benghazi only to get driven out. Yes the US taxpayers have lossed big time. At least RU is fighting for a real purpose of keeping the Globalist away from their doorsteps.
What purpose? If it was to keep NATO countries from their border they have done the opposite. If it was to prevent Ukraine from turning west they have done the opposite. If it was to project more political power globally it did the opposite, they are now shunned worldwide and must kowtow to former rival China and beg counties like North Korea for ammunition. If it was for economic gain hey good job now they are selling to China and India at a deep discount because they have no bargaining power, have lost hundreds of thousands of prime population age to war and smart people fleeing, and are driving around in cars produced without air bags because sanctions have forced them to start going backwards on the technology curve.
USA spending a fraction of single year's military budget to help severely gimp an aggressive expansionist Russia without US casualties is a bargain. I understand you being worried about Russia security, what with the way Georgia and Ukraine weree invading them to seize their territory and resources.
Finland will be fine. They lost the Winter War because they were alone. They are not anymore.
The coward Putin won't pick on Finland now. He picked on Ukraine because Ukraine wasn't a NATO member while claiming he invaded because Ukraine wanted to be a NATO member.
But he didn't dare invading any of the nearby NATO countries.
You are living in fantasy land. 11% and it was prime land. You don’t know Finland like I do. People don’t live in Lapland and in ice. Educate yourself.
Stop pretending we are in a good situation. This current administration is clueless.
Stop pretending we are in a good situation. This current administration is clueless.
Do you think Russia is in a better situation?
I'd prefer there was no war going on. But since there is, I feel much better off in the USA. Nobody blows stuff up better and more thoroughly than this country.
Having bases all over Europe is not the only way Americans can lose. We do pay to have a troops all over Europe right now. We pay other countries for god knows what kind of liberal/woke agendas
The US doesn't have large bases in most of the 28 European countries in NATO, and it's actual main bases tend to be in South Western Germany (Kaiserslautern), Northern Italy and the UK (especially East Anglia), whilst the US is allowed to use some other countries shared military facilities in relation to Spain, Sicily (Southern Italy) Crete (Greece), Turkey, Cyprus (UK base), Norway, Iceland and Greenland, and the US has command staff at NATO Commands and HQ's, including the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and NATO headquarters both of which are in Belgium.
The US has currently decided to deploy military forces and weapons to Eastern Europe in relation to current events, as have other NATO members, however the US has complete control over such deployments, and is not forced to make such deployments.
I am also not sure what you mean by woke/liberal agenda, as the US generally just contributes to intelligence, radar or other facilities that are beneficial to US itself, and in terms of the Arctic, it's an area that the US itself concerned about, so the admittance of further Nordic countries to NATO, will be widely welcomed by those in power in the US.
If the US wants global status and the ability to take on countries such as China, then allies and alliances are the most sensible way for it to achieve this.
China is doing the same thing through BRICS, Belts and Roads initiative, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation etc.
Last edited by Brave New World; 04-06-2023 at 04:53 AM..
The US doesn't have large bases in most of the 28 European countries in NATO, and it's actual main bases tend to be in South Western Germany (Kaiserslautern), Northern Italy and the UK (especially East Anglia), whilst the US is allowed to use some other countries shared military facilities in relation to Spain, Sicily (Southern Italy) Crete (Greece), Turkey, Cyprus (UK base), Norway, Iceland and Greenland, and the US has command staff at NATO Commands and HQ's, including the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and NATO headquarters both of which are in Belgium.
The US has currently decided to deploy military forces and weapons to Eastern Europe in relation to current events, as have other NATO members, however the US has complete control over such deployments, and is not forced to make such deployments.
People act as if it's still the 1980s, with massive armored formations in place, ready to counter an armored thrust from East Germany through the Fulda Gap. IIRC, presently the heaviest permanent US unit in Europe is a Stryker brigade, and while Strykers are fine vehicles, a tank brigade - probably even a Russian one, although God knows these days - would go through them like a hot knife through butter. And that is no reflection on the unit or its equipment. US units in Europe are not there for the purposes of fighting a land war.
Most of the US bases in Europe are there to act as the logistical tail end for power projection in the Middle East. Currently, of course, they're also supporting a massive intelligence and battlefield surveillance operation. Those antenna-laden aircraft flying figure-8s over the Black Sea aren't there for meteorological purposes.
People act as if it's still the 1980s, with massive armored formations in place, ready to counter an armored thrust from East Germany through the Fulda Gap. IIRC, presently the heaviest permanent US unit in Europe is a Stryker brigade, and while Strykers are fine vehicles, a tank brigade - probably even a Russian one, although God knows these days - would go through them like a hot knife through butter. And that is no reflection on the unit or its equipment. US units in Europe are not there for the purposes of fighting a land war.
Most of the US bases in Europe are there to act as the logistical tail end for power projection in the Middle East. Currently, of course, they're also supporting a massive intelligence and battlefield surveillance operation. Those antenna-laden aircraft flying figure-8s over the Black Sea aren't there for meteorological purposes.
Exactly.
The US has reduced it's forced by nearly 90% since the Cold War, and what remains today is often logistics and bases that can be used to support power projection whether it be within Europe or regions around Europe which range from the Arctic right down to North Africa and the Middle East.
Bases in Europe, even played a major role in the US War on Terror, in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially in relation to medical and logistic support. Ramstein is of critical importance, whilst most of the bases in Italy are more about regions beyond Europe around the Mediterranean region, with US Naval support being provided by the US of Spanish and Italian bases, we well as a Greek naval facility on Crete, and the use of bases in Turkey, and access to British bases such as those on Cyprus.
In terms of the UK, and Scandinavia, they are useful assets in relation to Arctic Warfare, Anti-Submarine warfare related to the Greenland - Iceland - UK Gap (GIUK), whilst USAF bases in the UK are far enough away to have enhanced warning of an attack and to scramble aircraft, with East Anglia being almost the spiritual home of the USAF, given it's strong historuc ties with the USAF and indeed RAF.
The US also has numerous intelligence facilities, and radar facilities that are important US assets in relation to numerous US Defence and Intelligence agencies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
