DOD Priority Shift

13,394 Views | 170 Replies | Last: 10 days ago by Get Off My Lawn
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:11a, 2/12/25
Looks like Sec. of Defense is making big changes when it comes to the US and being involved in operations worldwide.

OUT: Ukraine and Europe security
IN: United States of America, Thwarting China


Reply Quote
138
1 edit
Fishing Fools
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:12a, 2/12/25
Pete.
Reply Quote
93
aggie93
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:13a, 2/12/25
AG
Doesn't he understand the importance of us subsidizing those poor Western European countries with our military because they haven't been able to rebuild since WWII and they can't afford their own defense?
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan
Reply Quote
54
CyclingAg82
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:16a, 2/12/25
AG
He is sending a message to Europe that they need to put more in their defense budgets and stop relying on the USA as the primary deterrent force.

He is imploring them elevate their ability to fight and defend, and if something happens USA will be there to support.

IMO This was needed and is good for the long term in Europe.
Reply Quote
146
1 edit
BlueSmoke
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:20a, 2/12/25
NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!
Nobody cares. Work Harder
Reply Quote
16
rgag12
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:20a, 2/12/25
AG
I think Europe should guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in a separate agreement outside of NATO. Otherwise Russia will be tempted to recoup what it sees it "lost" in the upcoming treaty in the future.
Reply Quote
19
riverrataggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CyclingAg82 • 9:21a, 2/12/25
AG
CyclingAg82 said:
He is sending a message to Europe that they need to put more in their defense budgets and stop relying on the USA as the primary deterrent force.

He is imploring them elevate their ability to fight and defend, and if something happens USA will be to support.

IMO This was needed and is good for the long term in Europe.


100%. They have been increasing their defense budgets, to the looks of 10% CAGR over next 2-3 years. But that's not enough considering how low it is. Got to pump up those numbers.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Mr. Fingerbottom
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:23a, 2/12/25
Time to kill a whole lotta cartel members instead of giving money to pos zelensky to play patty cake
Reply Quote
82
1 edit
CyclingAg82
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to riverrataggie • 9:35a, 2/12/25
AG
riverrataggie said:
CyclingAg82 said:
He is sending a message to Europe that they need to put more in their defense budgets and stop relying on the USA as the primary deterrent force.

He is imploring them elevate their ability to fight and defend, and if something happens USA will be to support.

IMO This was needed and is good for the long term in Europe.


100%. They have been increasing their defense budgets, to the looks of 10% CAGR over next 2-3 years. But that's not enough considering how low it is. Got to pump up those numbers.

Obligatory.....
Reply Quote
7
Urban Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to rgag12 • 9:45a, 2/12/25
AG
rgag12 said:
I think Europe should guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in a separate agreement outside of NATO. Otherwise Russia will be tempted to recoup what it sees it "lost" in the upcoming treaty in the future.
If Europe is willing to send their sons to die for Ukraine, that's their call. Nothing at all is stopping them.
Reply Quote
26
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to CyclingAg82 • 9:46a, 2/12/25
AG
CyclingAg82 said:
He is sending a message to Europe that they need to put more in their defense budgets and stop relying on the USA as the primary deterrent force.

He is imploring them elevate their ability to fight and defend, and if something happens USA will be there to support.

IMO This was needed and is good for the long term in Europe.
Agreed. The EU is larger than the USA. There is no reason why we have to take the lead on everything. If they want to carry a big stick like us then they are more than capable of doing it, if they want/need to.

We have to focus on the Western Hemisphere and China right now. Way more critical.
Reply Quote
30
Red Red Wine
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:17a, 2/12/25
AG
This is actually worse for Russia in the long run.

If Europe actually steps and builds up a coherent fighting force to help support and defend Ukraine, that will mean Russia now has the US and Europe as a problem versus today where they only worry about the US.

VERY GOOD MOVE FOR THE LONG-TERM STABILITY OF THE WORLD.
Reply Quote
37
Kenneth_2003
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:20a, 2/12/25
AG
This is in line with Rubio's sit down with Megyn Kelly a week or so ago.
He commented that overall the further east you go in Europe the more they spend on security. Certain European countries, who should have more concern over their security due to their proximity to Russia and have sufficiently large economies to afford their own security, are over relying on US presence and using their own resources instead to prioritize their domestic social programs.

It's not our job to ensure that Germans can retire early.
Reply Quote
59
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BlueSmoke • 10:35a, 2/12/25
AG
BlueSmoke said:
NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!
explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.
Reply Quote
3
LMCane
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggie93 • 10:35a, 2/12/25
aggie93 said:
Doesn't he understand the importance of us subsidizing those poor Western European countries with our military because they haven't been able to rebuild since WWII and they can't afford their own defense?

"because they want to spend billions on DEI, bureaucracy, 35 hour work weeks, and a welfare state for Islamic immigrants"?

I fixed it for you.
Reply Quote
19
pagerman @ work
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 10:38a, 2/12/25
AG
BusterAg said:
BlueSmoke said:
NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!
explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.
What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
7
BusterAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pagerman @ work • 10:39a, 2/12/25
AG
pagerman @ work said:
BusterAg said:
BlueSmoke said:
NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!
explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.
What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.
Is Ukraine part of NATO?
Reply Quote
8
HoustonAg9999
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:41a, 2/12/25
Quote:
What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.
what's wrong with this if those Troops are in UKE they could be subjected to attack in UKE that's not an attack on a NATO country ie their territorial integrity in risk, yall so quick to want to start ww3.

Brings me to my second if Russia's military is a joke why are you even worried about them expanding a war they will lose?
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
Fightin_Aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:57a, 2/12/25
AG
Based on history and current events these are all common sense policies

Entangled alliances in Eastern Europe don't work out well.

Ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand
The world needs mean tweets

My Pronouns Ultra and MAGA

Trump 2024
Reply Quote
10
Eliminatus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pagerman @ work • 11:03a, 2/12/25
AG
pagerman @ work said:
BusterAg said:
BlueSmoke said:
NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!
explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.
What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.
Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.
Reply Quote
4
agaberto
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:04a, 2/12/25
I thought this thread was going to be about the revision of DoD spending by Doge
Reply Quote
6
Eliminatus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Fightin_Aggie • 11:06a, 2/12/25
AG
Fightin_Aggie said:
Based on history and current events these are all common sense policies

Entangled alliances in Eastern Europe don't work out well.

Ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand
They work out well enough sometimes.

See the Cold War
Reply Quote
2
KerrAg76
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mr. Fingerbottom • 11:09a, 2/12/25
And to funnel cash back to the bidens
Reply Quote
2
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:09a, 2/12/25
Some Congress grifters are going to be pissed! They're probably going to start rattling sabers for impeachment.
Reply Quote
9
pagerman @ work
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BusterAg • 11:10a, 2/12/25
AG
BusterAg said:
pagerman @ work said:
BusterAg said:
BlueSmoke said:
NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!
explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.
What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.
Is Ukraine part of NATO?
Not yet.

But there has to be some teeth to the peacekeeping force beyond their mere presence. You cannot allow Putin the ability to attack NATO forces and rule out in advance the serious consequences of doing so.

It's almost as if the goal is to undermine the peacekeeping force before it is actually a thing. Even if you don't plan on invoking it, you don't declare it in advance.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
3
Ellis Wyatt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pagerman @ work • 11:11a, 2/12/25
Quote:

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.
**** 'em! We are broke.

Quote:
But there has to be some teeth to the peacekeeping force beyond their mere presence. You cannot allow Putin the ability to attack NATO forces and rule out in advance the serious consequences of doing so.

Then Europe better get to work on their militaries and figure out what to do to stop Russia.
Reply Quote
21
1 edit
American Hardwood
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Kenneth_2003 • 11:11a, 2/12/25
AG
Kenneth_2003 said:
This is in line with Rubio's sit down with Megyn Kelly a week or so ago.
He commented that overall the further east you go in Europe the more they spend on security. Certain European countries, who should have more concern over their security due to their proximity to Russia and have sufficiently large economies to afford their own security, are over relying on US presence and using their own resources instead to prioritize their domestic social programs.

It's not our job to ensure that Germans can retire early.
You ever tried to defend Europe in a game of Risk? This is exactly what it looks like.
The best way to keep evil men from wielding great power is to not create great power in the first place.
Reply Quote
4
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:12a, 2/12/25
I read this as Zelensky holding out too ardently during negotiations.

"Fine. You don't want to play ball? Think you can rely on a quiet Dem cabal to undermine efforts at compromise? Your perceived backing is now gone. Get your tiny tyrannical butt back to the table before you lose more."
Reply Quote
8
Sq 17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:14a, 2/12/25
2014 borders iirc include Crimea and the Ukes ain't getting that back
2020 border is a different issue and unlikely Putin is willing to completely give up the territory they won in the last couple of years

No NATO is less of an issue if Eoropean boots and air assets are on the ground
Pretty sure Poland with a little help could secure the border and serve as an adequate deterrent. I don't think Putin's mule train logistics are going to be trying to advance against a fully functional European Force
Reply Quote
2
pagerman @ work
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ellis Wyatt • 11:15a, 2/12/25
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:
Quote:

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.
**** 'em! We are broke.

Quote:
But there has to be some teeth to the peacekeeping force beyond their mere presence. You cannot allow Putin the ability to attack NATO forces and rule out in advance the serious consequences of doing so.

Then Europe better get to work on their militaries and figure out what to do to stop Russia.
Covering the peacekeeping force made up of NATO countries' militaries with Article 5 costs the US absolutely nothing financially, militarily or in any other way.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
1
American Hardwood
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eliminatus • 11:15a, 2/12/25
AG
Eliminatus said:
pagerman @ work said:
BusterAg said:
BlueSmoke said:
NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!
explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.
What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.
Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.
Considering the alternate, sending a few troops into Ukraine as a sacrificial tripwire to activate NATO would make Ukraine a de facto NATO nation. I would rather not have that work-around in effect.
The best way to keep evil men from wielding great power is to not create great power in the first place.
Reply Quote
19
pagerman @ work
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to American Hardwood • 11:20a, 2/12/25
AG
American Hardwood said:
Eliminatus said:
pagerman @ work said:
BusterAg said:
BlueSmoke said:
NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!
explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.
What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.
Gotta agree. The whole point of peacekeeping troops is that they are meant to be a trip wire. If there is nothing on the end of that trip wire though, it nullifies the entire concept. This may just be kicking the can down the road, again. Massive mistake IMO, but honestly expected given his stances even before his nomination.
Considering the alternate, sending a few troops into Ukraine as a sacrificial tripwire to activate NATO would make Ukraine a de facto NATO nation. I would rather not have that work-around in effect.
It doesn't make Ukraine de facto anything.

It does serve as a major deterrent to Russia deciding to continue the war they started once the Ukrainian military has to stand down in some capacity and likely accept some sort of DMZ as a condition of peace.

That said, this is all likely moot as it is unlikely Putin will seriously negotiate a peace deal.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
2
Kenneth_2003
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to pagerman @ work • 11:21a, 2/12/25
AG
pagerman @ work said:
BusterAg said:
pagerman @ work said:
BusterAg said:
BlueSmoke said:
NOT covered under article 5....YUGE!
explain that, please, for the casual f16 news absorber.
What it means is that Putin can attack European troops that are part of the peacekeeping force and it will not be seen as an attack on NATO.

It's a ridiculous notion and serves to absolutely gut the authority of any European troops participating in the peacekeeping efforts.
Is Ukraine part of NATO?
Not yet.

But there has to be some teeth to the peacekeeping force beyond their mere presence. You cannot allow Putin the ability to attack NATO forces and rule out in advance the serious consequences of doing so.

It's almost as if the goal is to undermine the peacekeeping force before it is actually a thing. Even if you don't plan on invoking it, you don't declare it in advance.
It's a fine line distinction.
It means that if a nation sends peace keepers to Ukraine and they are attacked it will be seen as an attack on the troops of that nation. So an attack on English troops or French troops or German or etc... Now what happens when, let's say for example, English peace keepers are attacked and England retaliates. If Russia keeps the fight in Ukraine no Article 5. If England retaliates and a bomb goes off in England, I think you just kicked off WW3.

It actually can provide added stability in the whole region. Though it makes the overall situation in Ukraine less safe, but makes the region as a whole less dicey.

That's my read on it at least.
Reply Quote
3
Fightin_Aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eliminatus • 11:23a, 2/12/25
AG
Eliminatus said:
Fightin_Aggie said:
Based on history and current events these are all common sense policies

Entangled alliances in Eastern Europe don't work out well.

Ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand
They work out well enough sometimes.

See the Cold War


What Eastern European nation was part of NATO during the Cold War?
The world needs mean tweets

My Pronouns Ultra and MAGA

Trump 2024
Reply Quote
6
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to American Hardwood • 11:24a, 2/12/25
France seems to have 50 hard core guys in every hell hole around the globe. The death of any one of them may be a shame, but shouldn't obligate all of NATO to descend on a random African warlord.

In the same way even if all NATO members have SOME personnel to Ukraine: it remains outside of Article 5 protection and deaths there would clearly fall short of tripping the clause.

It's the fact that the obvious is being articulated is what's interesting. Which is why I see this as a caution to Zelensky that he needs to recognize his place and the fact that he's going to have to give some in negotiations.
Reply Quote
14
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.