Kyiv:Ukrainian forces advance deep into Russian Defense lines in Kharkiv region.

It's also worth looking at how these budgets are utilised - granted the level of many countries is below this "2% target" but looking at Germany they traditionally spent a considerable proportion of their budget (well over 2% up to the 1990s) maintaining out of date equipment in order to maintain a force level consistent with SACEUR force requirements. In the latter part of the 20th century Germany (and indeed most European countries) reviewed its defence spending, equipment and personnel requirements in terms of the de-escalation of tensions within Europe (following the fall of the wall and all that) they then embarked upon programs to re-equip their military based upon the (in retrospect and somewhat naively) the supposition that threats would not come from Russia but from elsewhere. In that mode pan-national undertaking like Airbus and Panavia for example developed fighters like the Tornado and later the Eurofighter where costs were spread over multiple countries and multiple supply-chains thus developing economies of scale and lowing of costs. This meant that budgetary pressures were reduced and allowed reduced spending but better more modern equipment; Phantom fighter/recce aircraft etc that cost a fortune to maintain were retired for multi-role aircraft that cost less and did more. The weapons development programs were specific to threat and the threat was (supposedly) changing.
I'm not saying that the role of Germany within NATO has been a shinning success, however, it's simply not possible to encapsulate 70 years of post war German and European history, national zeit geist and political change into just railing at a 2% figure and think that it proves or dis-proves one US Presidents ambiguous ideas on a very complex situation.....which is a very lazy word.....but I think you get my drift?

 

I get what you are saying but Trump wasn't just pissed at Germany, he was pissed at almost every other member. And not about just the amount of GDP they were contributing but more in the direction they were all going as to not see a place like Russia as a threat.

It doesn't matter where Germany is coming from historically, what mattered in that meeting was where it was headed. And Trump was asking all the right questions in simplistic terms because Trump was cutting out all the bullshit regarding the details of spending and more to the point of where Germany and much of Europe's heads were at.

 

Trump was asking questions in simplistic terms because he's a toddler in a man's body.

 

That is descriptive of most politicians - "Toddler in body of adult" how profound ..

 

That's a dipshit progressive narrative because you didn't like Trump and disregarded what he was saying. He was asking things in simplistic terms because that's how you cut through the bullshit. That bullshit that helped get us where we are right now.

It's a black and white situation. Either the entire point of NATO is useless because you do not deem Russia a threat or it isn't in which case you need to start acting like it.

 

You apparently are not aware of the history of Ukrainian politics, the government of Ukraine, or the condition of the Ukrainian military prior to 2014.
Ukraine’s military was weakened by pro Russian scum “presidents” of Ukraine. The worst POS was Yanukovich the turd who was forced out of ofice for trying to tie Ukraine into Russian “security and economic “ space. In essence become a colony of Russia. Prior to 2014 Ukraine’s military was organized by regions or aka counties. They were still organized like national guard and poorly trained and poorly equipped. When the pro Russian scum started fighting in the Donbas with the help of Russians at the same time Krym- Crimea was taken over there was only one large privately funded element of good fighters called the Azov natal lion. Azov did kick some pro Russian butt then Russia sent in “ volunteers and Chechen Schiest.

Obama our Kenyan born (sic) so called president at the time was ballers and refused to give offensive weapons to Ukraine saying that he did not want to expand the fighting. Yet the US started training the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainians reorganized their military more closely to US lines of command. Ukraine was fighting the pro Russians and Russians for 8 years when the Turd of Moskva decided to go to war against Ukraine. Of course since the invasion obviously Ukraine received offensive weapon and was able to prevent the Russians from capturing their country. So you know where we are today.

 

...this probably is not the right forum for this, but being "simplistic" is just the point....it isn't a simple issue and certainly in this scenario simplistic questions lack thought or nuance. The direction of European travel was based upon the idea that nations do better when they trade and talk together (the idea of the EU is based upon the Kantian ideas of cosmopolitanism), however, there were influences from Russia that needed this not to work and I am convinced that Trump and his aims were based upon an agenda that was designed to place a wedge into European cohesion.

 

When you willingly become energy dependant on the country that is the main goal of NATO to defend against you are saying that there is no longer a purpose to NATO.

And if that's the case then NATO need not exist.

That was Trump's point. That and stop leaning on us for all the defense spending and start strengthening yourselves

 

I agree with that basic accusation that our politicians just raise money. Trump is excellent at raising money. We should make members of the House of Representatives terms at least 4 years and term limit the bebonees to 2 terms.

 

Actually the British have been providing training and weapons since 2014 when Obama wasn't. Poland also has been a massive help.

 

I understand all this which is why Putin saw Ukraine as up for grabs. That and the newly discovered gas deposits plus he can get his "bread basket" back...and it's a no brainer as to why Putin is trying to roll into Ukraine.

This has nothing to do with the reality that Putin's plan worked in 2014 and the world became complacent to Russia annexing Crimea.

And there was a chance and might still be, that this works again. All be it at a much larger cost for Russia/Putin. Trump complimenting Putin does not make him a Putin loyalist.

 

No, it's what I see. Look at how he behaves. He rants and raves like a child. He childishly throws a tantrum when he loses an election.

 

Of course that's what you see. You heard he said "grab em by the *****" once in 2005 while drunk and in the privacy of his friends and out of context...and it snowballed from there. From that point on dipshit progressives thought everything he said was outragous and irresponsible and the posh thing to do was to laugh at him and shrug him off.

"he said we should inject sunlight into our viens!!!!"

"he said Germany shouldn't make energy deals with Russia!!!!"

If he said one thing then other must be incorrect as well!

it's been a myriad of 7 years of bullshit listening to progressives rant over everything Trump says and does not understanding half of it. Just being overly emotional. Well it turns out his geopolitics and world view was on point. You are just going to have to accept that reality.

We voted in the weaker, confused guy and it gave a window of opporunity for Putin to make his move and now we are on the brink of WW3. Europe is having an energy crisis because they thought we live in Star Trek utopia and placed too much trust and dependancy on the wrong person.

We are exactly where we should be.

 

I get that...and have always viewed Russia and Putin as a threat but look at the back story. Russia uses information and influence as a weapon and is exceeding good in how they use it and who they use to wield it. Russian's loaded with cash started arriving in Europe in the late 20th Century and bought their way into companies and law firms and accountancy and through those channels used them as pathways to political influence. London was practically owned by Russian money and UK politicians were enthralled by them; same in Europe. It was so simple. So we fast forward to this energy dependency debate; buy our gas; we're good guys - you've got chaps on the board of Gaxprom Lukoil etc. joint ventures with BP Neo Ineos you name it....follow the money. The kleptocracy was swept under the table the oligarchs became socialites and owned football clubs and half of Monaco; the money was flowing. Russia is Putin and Putin always wanted to re-invent the Russian empire and the last thing he needed was a strong western facing Europe so he needed to fracture that in order for that to work. Look at the pathetic response to the invasion in 2014 which was the test case for the Ukraine invasion.

Which was a good reason for Trump to be seen as lukewarm on NATO which Trump insinuated. At the time France and Germany were working on this absurd idea of a European Army which in the event of a fractured NATO would, in European eyes, have been a good idea of European defence... I'm not going into just how crass that idea is...a European army under EU control would have been an absolute Godsend for Putin as it would have been so tied up in politics as to have been as much use as a chocolate fireguard.....but away cut a long story short there is a shed load of back story that your lad Trump was influenced not to see or recognise.

 

Fundraising is Job One for professional politicians not for Trump.
If our corrupt bipartisan ruling political class could prove that Trump had converted political donations to expenses not related to his campaign and political movement (which can be done legally) Trump would be finished -- politically.

 

I'm not even talking about his obviously sober locker room talk. Focusing just on his years as "presuhdint," he has consistently behaved like a spoiled brat who never grew up.

 

And yet for all the reasons you hate that you consider unprofessional or becoming are exactly the reasons why Putin waited until Biden got elected to do his next land grab

 

Because Trump was wrong.

 

Ukraine Conflict Updates

Key Takeaways

• Ukrainian forces continued to make significant gains in Kherson Oblast while simultaneously continuing advances in Kharkiv and Luhansk Oblast.
• Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement of partial mobilization is having more significant short-term impacts on the Russian domestic context than on the war in Ukraine, catalyzing fractures in the information space that confuse and undermine Putin’s narratives.
• Ukrainian forces continued to make substantial gains in northern Kherson Oblast on October 4, beginning to collapse the sparsely-manned Russian lines in that area.
• Ukrainian forces continued to make gains in eastern Kharkiv Oblast west of Svatove on October 4, pushing past the Oskil River and increasingly threatening Russian positions in Luhansk Oblast.
• Russian forces continued to conduct artillery, air, and missile strikes west of Hulyiapole and in Dnipropetrovsk and Mykolaiv Oblasts on October 4.
• Russian forces continued ground attacks in Donetsk Oblast on October 4.
• The Kremlin effectively ordered local Russian administrations and non-Ministry of Defense institutions to fund a significant part of the mobilization effort from local budgets.
• Russian security officials are attempting to maintain their domestic security apparatus as Putin’s partial mobilization drains the Russian security sector to generate additional forces to fight in Ukraine. . . .

Ukrainian forces continued to make significant gains in Kherson Oblast while simultaneously continuing advances in Kharkiv and Luhansk oblasts on October 4. Ukrainian forces liberated several settlements on the eastern bank of the Inhulets River along the T2207 highway, forcing Russian forces to retreat to the south toward Kherson City. Ukrainian forces also continued to push south along the Dnipro River and the T0403 highway, severing two Russian ground lines of communication (GLOCs) in northern Kherson Oblast and forcing Russians south of the Kherson-Dnipropetrovsk Oblast border toward the Beryslav area. Ukrainian military officials noted that the Ukrainian interdiction campaign is crippling Russian attempts to transfer additional ammunition, reserves, mobilized men, and means of defense to frontline positions.[1] Ukrainian forces also continued to advance east of the Oskil River in Kharkiv Oblast, and Russian sources claimed that battles are ongoing near the R66 Svatove-Kreminna highway.[2]

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s announcement of partial mobilization is having more significant short-term impacts on the Russian domestic context than on the war in Ukraine, interacting with Russian battlefield failures to exacerbate fractures in the information space that confuse and undermine Putin’s narratives. Ukrainian sources have rightly observed that the partial mobilization is not a major threat in the short term because the Ukrainian counteroffensive is moving faster than the mobilization can generate effects.[3] Ukrainian Intelligence Chief Kyrylo Budanov even stated that mobilization in Russia is a “gift” to Ukraine because the Kremlin is finding itself in a “dead end,” caught between its failures and its determination to hold what it has seized.[4] The controversies surrounding the poorly executed partial mobilization, coupled with significant Russian defeats in Kharkiv Oblast and around Lyman, have intensified infighting between pro-Putin Russian nationalist factions and are creating new fractures among voices who speak to Putin’s core constituencies.[5] . . .

 

Oh he was wrong in warning NATO about becoming energy dependant on Russia? Is that what you are trying to tell me?

 

No. I have said several times he was right. In that he joined an opinion shared by every American President and senior official, so he gets no bonus points.
He was wrong to question Article 5.

 

The end is near.

World
The Daily Beast
Putin’s Dueling Foot Soldiers Are Now Apparently Killing Each Other Off

 

"Complacent to annexation Party " didn't start in 2014 paddy . yer late to a party that been going at least since 1999 ..

Much bigger cost this one though ... got that right ..

 

Russia didn't formally annex crimea until 2014.

 

and you have revealed this useless irrelevant tidbit of information for what purpose ?