Russia Invades Ukraine XVI

[TIDE-HSV]

I'm not sure where this belongs.

This is a good breakdown on Trump and NATO.
For the first time, I see that it seems Trump thinks NATO member states pay dues into a big pot of NATO money that pays soldiers. (There is a small pot of NATO money called "NATO common funding" from which NATO pays for certain very specific things like NATO-owned AWACS aircraft and NATO military headquarters).
The 2% promise is that NATO members promise to spend 2% of their GDP on their own militaries, not some NATO slush fund. i.e. Lithuania agrees to spend 2% of Lithuania's GDP on the Lithuanian defense forces.
When the 2% pledge was made, few members were spending 2% on defense. Now a lot more are spending 2% and the delinquents are ramping up as well.
When Trump told a delinquent European head of government that he would not send American troops to defend them against a Russian invasion, he was not speaking to Putin. he was speaking to a delinquent Ally, trying to put pressure on the delinquent to go back to his parliament and convince them to honor the 2% pledge. Indelicate, impolite even, but he was making a point.

The story is correct, a lot of European armies are experiencing stress getting recruits to fill the ranks. Europeans are not making little europeans as fast as they once were. Everybody is feeling this, except maybe the Americans.

I think he's made it clear all along that he believes that all who aren't devoting 2% to the common defense owe the US for its disproportionate contribution to NATO. It's all transactional with him...

 

[jthomas666]

I'm not sure where this belongs.

This is a good breakdown on Trump and NATO.
For the first time, I see that it seems Trump thinks NATO member states pay dues into a big pot of NATO money that pays soldiers. (There is a small pot of NATO money called "NATO common funding" from which NATO pays for certain very specific things like NATO-owned AWACS aircraft and NATO military headquarters).

He's probably trying to figure out how he can funnel some of that money into his own pocket...

 

[Bamaro]

Then you disagree with the France 24 article I cited? In context, it's no longer in stasis. According to the NYT, yesterday, Trump handed the phone call with Zelensky to Musk. It would appear Elon has bought himself a government...

AKA, oligarchy.
FWIW, I trust Musk much, much more than trump.

 

[Bamaro]

I'm not sure where this belongs.

This is a good breakdown on Trump and NATO.
For the first time, I see that it seems Trump thinks NATO member states pay dues into a big pot of NATO money that pays soldiers. (There is a small pot of NATO money called "NATO common funding" from which NATO pays for certain very specific things like NATO-owned AWACS aircraft and NATO military headquarters).
The 2% promise is that NATO members promise to spend 2% of their GDP on their own militaries, not some NATO slush fund. i.e. Lithuania agrees to spend 2% of Lithuania's GDP on the Lithuanian defense forces.
When the 2% pledge was made, few members were spending 2% on defense. Now a lot more are spending 2% and the delinquents are ramping up as well.
When Trump told a delinquent European head of government that he would not send American troops to defend them against a Russian invasion, he was not speaking to Putin. he was speaking to a delinquent Ally, trying to put pressure on the delinquent to go back to his parliament and convince them to honor the 2% pledge. Indelicate, impolite even, but he was making a point.

The story is correct, a lot of European armies are experiencing stress getting recruits to fill the ranks. Europeans are not making little europeans as fast as they once were. Everybody is feeling this, except maybe the Americans.

IMO, one of the few good things that trump did last time was getting some NATO countries to pay up.

 

[NationalTitles18]

AKA, oligarchy.
FWIW, I trust Musk much, much more than trump.

I trust both to act in their own self-serving interests.

 

[NationalTitles18]

Interesting.

JD Vance says US could veto NATO if Europe tries to regulate Elon Musk’s platforms

Republican vice presidential nominee says ‘Germans and other nations’ – not Russia – would ‘have to fund Ukraine’s reconstruction’

www.independent.co.uk

 

[UAH]

I'm not sure where this belongs.

This is a good breakdown on Trump and NATO.
For the first time, I see that it seems Trump thinks NATO member states pay dues into a big pot of NATO money that pays soldiers. (There is a small pot of NATO money called "NATO common funding" from which NATO pays for certain very specific things like NATO-owned AWACS aircraft and NATO military headquarters).
The 2% promise is that NATO members promise to spend 2% of their GDP on their own militaries, not some NATO slush fund. i.e. Lithuania agrees to spend 2% of Lithuania's GDP on the Lithuanian defense forces.
When the 2% pledge was made, few members were spending 2% on defense. Now a lot more are spending 2% and the delinquents are ramping up as well.
When Trump told a delinquent European head of government that he would not send American troops to defend them against a Russian invasion, he was not speaking to Putin. he was speaking to a delinquent Ally, trying to put pressure on the delinquent to go back to his parliament and convince them to honor the 2% pledge. Indelicate, impolite even, but he was making a point.

The story is correct, a lot of European armies are experiencing stress getting recruits to fill the ranks. Europeans are not making little europeans as fast as they once were. Everybody is feeling this, except maybe the Americans.

I am not current on age group demographics and birth rates in the US but have heard it said that all branches of the US military are struggling to meet recruitment goals to cover replacements.

The misue of our military forces over many years is likely a good indicator of why this is occurring.

 

[TexasBama]

 

[Tidewater]

I am not current on age group demographics and birth rates in the US but have heard it said that all branches of the US military are struggling to meet recruitment goals to cover replacements.

The misue of our military forces over many years is likely a good indicator of why this is occurring.

Recruiting for the armed services is a function of a number of factors: state of the economy, level of enlistment bonuses, public perception of service, and ultimately, the population pool of military age men and women, etc.
The US has plenty of young people, but a significant portion of them are physically unfit for service. A significant portion of those who are fit have other prospects that do not involve separation from home and family, harsh service conditions, the loss of personal freedom, etc. Of the remaining, a number of criminal convictions which exclude them from service. Finally, the way service is seen has taken a hit lately. I have put hundreds of lieutenants into the Army. The overwhelming majority have done their time, resigned their commissions, and returned to private life. One of my lieutenants sent me a powerpoint presentation which she was ordered to read to her soldiers word for word on the integration of transgender soldiers. One of the slides said, "You may see a fellow soldiers in the communal shower with you whose genitalia do not match yours because they have not yet finished their transition. This is normal." She asked me how to say that to her soldiers in good conscience. I told her, "When you take the king's coin, you do the king's bidding." You do your duty to the best of your ability as long as it is your duty. She resigned as soon as she legally could. I think that being overly welcoming of transgender soldiers (for example) means the armed forces have gained a few hundred (very expensive) transgender soldiers, and has cost them tens of thousands of recruits from states that are disproportionately represented in the armed forces: Virginia, down to Texas and then up to Idaho.

These mostly young men look at a recruiter and say, "Nah, I do not think I want to join that military." You can tell service members now in the service, "Shut up, you're just going to do what you are told," but ultimately, when each soldier's service obligation ends, he gets a vote.
Service conditions contribute to a difficult recruiting environment, low unemployment contributes, low enlistment bonuses contribute, but overall, it is a problem.

 

[TexasBama]

Recruiting for the armed services is a function of a number of factors: state of the economy, level of enlistment bonuses, public perception of service, and ultimately, the population pool of military age men and women, etc.
The US has plenty of young people, but a significant portion of them are physically unfit for service. A significant portion of those who are fit have other prospects that do not involve separation from home and family, harsh service conditions, the loss of personal freedom, etc. Of the remaining, a number of criminal convictions which exclude them from service. Finally, the way service is seen has taken a hit lately. I have put hundreds of lieutenants into the Army. The overwhelming majority have done their time, resigned their commissions, and returned to private life. One of my lieutenants sent me a powerpoint presentation which she was ordered to read to her soldiers word for word on the integration of transgender soldiers. One of the slides said, "You may see a fellow soldiers in the communal shower with you whose genitalia do not match yours because they have not yet finished their transition. This is normal." She asked me how to say that to her soldiers in good conscience. I told her, "When you take the king's coin, you do the king's bidding." You do your duty to the best of your ability as long as it is your duty. She resigned as soon as she legally could. I think that being overly welcoming of transgender soldiers (for example) means the armed forces have gained a few hundred (very expensive) transgender soldiers, and has cost them tens of thousands of recruits from states that are disproportionately represented in the armed forces: Virginia, down to Texas and then up to Montana.
View attachment 46963
These mostly young men look at a recruiter and say, "Nah, I do not think I want to join that military." You can tell service members now in the service, "Shut up, you're just going to do what you are told," but ultimately, when each soldier's service obligation end, he gets a vote.
Service conditions contribute to a difficult recruiting environment, low unemployment contributes, low enlistment bonuses contribute, but overall, it is a problem.

I think you're close to my age, and I don't remember the military recruiting hardly at all in the late 70s, other than the navy recruiting engineers for sub service.

 

[Toddrn]

I think you're close to my age, and I don't remember the military recruiting hardly at all in the late 70s, other than the navy recruiting engineers for sub service.

I joined in 78 after high school and had planned on the Navy. The recruiter wouldn't let go of serving on a nuclear sub so I went in the Air Force.

 

[jthomas666]

AKA, oligarchy.
FWIW, I trust Musk much, much more than trump.

"much, much more than trump" is a bar so high that you'd have to be an arthritic dachsund to clear it.

 

[Tidewater]

I think you're close to my age, and I don't remember the military recruiting hardly at all in the late 70s, other than the navy recruiting engineers for sub service.

Oh, they did.
Here are some examples.

In the 1970s, the US went to an all-volunteer forces. No more conscripts. Different set of leadership problems.
With conscripts, you really can tell them to "shut up and do what you're told" because most will leave once their period of conscripted service is up.
With volunteers, you have to entice them with money (enlistment bonuses, college tuition), locations (Hawai'i, Germany, Panama, etc.) or activities (e.g. jumping out of airplanes, fixing helicopters). You have to explain to soldiers what you want done and why you want them to do it. It is expensive, but you get a smarter, more motivated soldier out of a volunteer force.

 

[Tidewater]

I joined in 78 after high school and had planned on the Navy. The recruiter wouldn't let go of serving on a nuclear sub so I went in the Air Force.

QED.
"Screw you, kid, you're going to serve on a nuclear submarine!"
Kid: "Uh, not screw me, screw you, recruiter, and your service."

 

[TexasBama]

QED.
"Screw you, kid, you're going to serve on a nuclear submarine!"
Kid: "Uh, not screw me, screw you, recruiter, and your service."

Navy Recruiter - deployments are generally 6 months.
Me - so I would be living in a big piece of pipe 500 feet under the water for six months?

 

[TexasBama]

Oh, they did.
Here are some examples.

In the 1970s, the US went to an all-volunteer forces. No more conscripts. Different set of leadership problems.
With conscripts, you really can tell them to "shut up and do what you're told" because most will leave once their period of conscripted service is up.
With volunteers, you have to entice them with money (enlistment bonuses, college tuition), locations (Hawai'i, Germany, Panama, etc.) or activities (e.g. jumping out of airplanes, fixing helicopters). You have to explain to soldiers what you want done and why you want them to do it. It is expensive, but you get a smarter, more motivated soldier out of a volunteer force.

I guess I just remember they were dialing back headcount after Vietnam, but apparently not.

 

[Tidewater]

Navy Recruiter - deployments are generally 6 months.
Me - so I would be living in a big piece of pipe 500 feet under the water for six months?

It's funny, a German colleague of mine told me that the German submarine service is having a heck of a time getting recruits. Once they explain to potential U-boat crew members that their cell phones will not get cell phone coverage under the North Sea, they all take a hard pass.

 

[UAH]

Recruiting for the armed services is a function of a number of factors: state of the economy, level of enlistment bonuses, public perception of service, and ultimately, the population pool of military age men and women, etc.
The US has plenty of young people, but a significant portion of them are physically unfit for service. A significant portion of those who are fit have other prospects that do not involve separation from home and family, harsh service conditions, the loss of personal freedom, etc. Of the remaining, a number of criminal convictions which exclude them from service. Finally, the way service is seen has taken a hit lately. I have put hundreds of lieutenants into the Army. The overwhelming majority have done their time, resigned their commissions, and returned to private life. One of my lieutenants sent me a powerpoint presentation which she was ordered to read to her soldiers word for word on the integration of transgender soldiers. One of the slides said, "You may see a fellow soldiers in the communal shower with you whose genitalia do not match yours because they have not yet finished their transition. This is normal." She asked me how to say that to her soldiers in good conscience. I told her, "When you take the king's coin, you do the king's bidding." You do your duty to the best of your ability as long as it is your duty. She resigned as soon as she legally could. I think that being overly welcoming of transgender soldiers (for example) means the armed forces have gained a few hundred (very expensive) transgender soldiers, and has cost them tens of thousands of recruits from states that are disproportionately represented in the armed forces: Virginia, down to Texas and then up to Idaho.
View attachment 46977
These mostly young men look at a recruiter and say, "Nah, I do not think I want to join that military." You can tell service members now in the service, "Shut up, you're just going to do what you are told," but ultimately, when each soldier's service obligation ends, he gets a vote.
Service conditions contribute to a difficult recruiting environment, low unemployment contributes, low enlistment bonuses contribute, but overall, it is a problem.

I learned something about the imact of WOKE when it so clearly overdone. I appreciate that. It adds valuable perspective.

 

[Tidewater]

I guess I just remember they were dialing back headcount after Vietnam, but apparently not.

There is a throughput to the military, bring new soldiers, in training and then using them, sending them back home. Whether you input folks via conscription or volunteering, the need for new soldiers remains.
If you are drawing down the total numbers, you can afford to throttle back a little bit until you hit congressional manpower targets, but I do not think you can every stop recruiting entirely.

 

[Tidewater]

I learned something about the imact of WOKE when it so clearly overdone. I appreciate that. It adds valuable perspective.

There is always a tension between the society and the military that protects them. They are not the same, but you do not want the gulf between them to get too big, because a standing military is a dangerous thing.
American society is still pretty diverse, a significant range of views exists on social issues. If the military becomes too white, too male, or too conservative, (or, for that matter, too black, too female, or too progressive) that is not healthy for a republic.
On the other hand, tinkering too much with military effectiveness in the name of social experimentation is also dangerous. The difference between the effectiveness of the French army and the Wehrmacht in 1940 was less than Germanophiles and Francophobes want to admit, yet France collapsed in six weeks of fighting.