>“NATO airspace? There is no such thing. It’s strange to hear the reports that address us to go to the NATO alliance to clear the situation over the alleged violation because such a notion as ‘NATO airspace’ simply does not exist. It has never existed.”
You can't hide behind your special snowflake clubhouse anymore, NATOfags.
Russian Federation don't play that game.
>the black sea is a country
Oh, yathzee you retarded mongoloid.
Just because he thinks it doesn't exist doesn't mean he can just freely fly around in it with his bombers.
this is exactly like saying "Russian Crimea? there is no such thing as Russian Crimea, it never existed"
Ok, now i actually read the article.
>"the 29th of January, another Russian combat airplane violated Turkish—and NATO—airspace,” the State Department’s John Kirby said, echoing word for word his colleague from the Pentagon."
>"Mr. Kirby declined the offer to provide any proof of the Turkey airspace violation by Russian bomber. “It’s not our responsibility to provide proof to the Russians for something they did wrong,” he said to the RT reporter."(that means thry don't have any proof, not even radar or satellite records)
The articles goes on to some russian official saying they won't discuss this with NATO, just with the country that claims violation.
ITT: everyone is russian or paid by Russia.
Nothing new here. Russians are always trying to force other countries to deal with their shit bilaterally instead of through alliances or unions since they have more leverage that way.
See kidnapping an estonian to use as a bartering chip for prisoner exchange or threatening to let tens of thousands of shitskins migrants across the finnish/russian border unless funland stops being part of the EU sanctions.
Sasuga mafia state.
>all of europe would be speaking russian if it wasn't for the US
>being this delusional
>all of europe would be speaking russian if it wasn't for the US
not true btw, russia has been defeated by much smaller nations before, theyre shitting themselves in ukraine now too, france alone could annex russia in a month or so
>Nato consists of many countries, each country has an airpsace
Is it true that an airplane of any country which is a NATO member can freely fly in the NATO airspace over another NATO member?
I guess they still have to ask for permission.
Are you autistic?
You seem butthurt.
Can you explain how they've been shitting themselves in Ukraine?
From what I see they have about 4,000 sq miles more land now than they did in 2013.
>the entire russian military is in ukraine
>this is what he believes
Still no NATO airspace in existence, maybe during war when Joint Warfare Centre and other NATO bases take control over the war effort.
But there's no NATO airspace, our jets can't suddenly fly wherever they want over other NATO members airspace.
The Turks are violating Greece's airspace all the time, and is a legitimate problem right now.
They're both NATO members.
After germany fell there wasn't a single european state that could have stopped the soviet horde. Even finns only managed to hold the tide of subhumans long enough to barter for peace.
The US sent some officers from the military to Ukraine to help them train and structure their military against an Russian enemy.
Instead it was the officers that learned how the Russians fight.
The whole VHF specter is jammed 24/7 by the Russians, the main frequency specter most military grade radios in NATO use.
They also bomb anything that even remotely looks like an antenna based on visual or EK scans.
The Russians are a force to be reckoned with.
Those who say otherwise are delusional leftists, or right wing desktop warriors.
Anyone who've served in a NATO country in Europe or America knows this for a fact.
>russians have radios that jam one specific frequency band...
that was the whole point of your post and based on that absolutely staggering fact you declare everyone who disagrees with you a retard
hope that month isn't between november and march
>the winter is the sole reason russia hasn't been conquered thousands of times
they have had their asses handed to them by micro-nations during winter though
there is an actual war which they factually lost named after winter too...
the fact that two fucking retards (the french manletolean and adolfo hipster) could not handle the situation only speaks of their low value as leaders.
how do you explain gallipoli?
>mfw that entire village got bombed back to the stone age
Actually a frequency specter and a frequency band are two different things.
But yes you're retarded if you think that fact alone isn't something that makes the Russian military a force to be reckoned with, typical desktop warriors.
You can have all the firepower in the world, but if you can't coordinate how to use said firepower it will all become useless.
Russians are masters when it comes to disinformation and information/communication denial.
It must also be noted the fact that Russians so easily can jam radio frequencies and have been able so for many years, one can only imagine what other electronic hardware they can fuck up.
By foot an armor, we advance russian forces, have no chance They are weaklings and cowards, running away, Tomorrow will be, a brand new day! Don't fear the battle, greet it instead Follow the banner, the black-white & red!
[Waffen-, is marching on We won't give in, untill we've won The warrior spirit never dies And Once again, we will arise]] White men united, together they stood A pan-European brotherhood. Frontfighter spirit, come back again To a new generation of European men. Smash the reds is all I want. Send me to the eastern front!
[[Waffen-, is marching on We won't give in, untill we've won The warrior spirit, never dies And Once again, we will arise]]
Tiger and Panther, go ahead, russia, will soon be dead!
I love this meme so much.
Its as if you think NATO has some sort of god defense against Nukes that make all of us completely invulnerable to them.
If NATO went to war with China/Russia everyone would be fucked thanks to handy dandy Mutually Assured Destruction. The only thing that has stopped us from having more world wars.
back in the beginning of the 90s russians were blocking frequency bands where western radio was being broadcast... it took a man with rudimentary radio-engineering knowledge, a soldering iron and about two beers to build a decoder good enough to listen into and tape broadcasts
your perceived value of their frequency jamming is too high
This is not a judicial system, this is the cold calculus of force.
Rule: don't fly into our airspace
Punishment for breaking said rule: we'll shoot you.
No one needs to prove anything to you, what matters is what the person with the gun decides has occured.
It matters not one bit because your plane is still blown the fuck up. All that matters is what Turkey thinks occured. Don't fly so close and maybe they won't think that way next time.
So, we have a nice situation here: There's a rabid dog called Turkey that bites whoever it pleases for no good reason. The dog is dangerous but you can't put it out, because this dog is owned by Unca Sammy who's prone to going apeshit and shooting his gun at anyone he dislikes.
>your perceived value of their frequency jamming is too high
Let's hope that your military leaders aren't as retarded as you are.
Because if I had any power, I would petition to throw Estland out of NATO if that weren't the case.
You think this is cold war era technology, and there's absolutely no way to evolve it and make it more potent.
Also you disregarded my other point I made about communication denial the Russians do.
Bombing the fuck out of anything looking like, or acts like an antenna, please tell me your drunk countrymen from the 90's contingency plan for that kind of action.
It's clear that you have no insight in how wars and military works at all, just stop pretending you have knowledge about it and just shitpost about potatoes and muslims instead
shut the fuck up already you imbecile
you obviously have no fucking clue about how the physical world works and what the limits are to frequency jammers and what a typical antenna looks like
That's how this works irl, it has nothing to do with being hard on the internet.
Reality is if you fly a nuclear capable bomber, into a countries airspace, they will shoot it down. There is no fucking court room they need to go to to prove you were in their airspace. If they feel threatened, they will shoot you.
NATO and UN or GSTO are completely different things.
If you actually knew what NATO was you'd understand why its not hard to believe that it would have controlled airspace over its countries. Its a fucking military defense coalition you stupid shitheads.
>Irrelevant country thinks someone gets BTFO'd
>HAHA YOU'RE WRONG AND MAD.
He's a Pan-european nationalist and anti-communist but even he recognises there is little worse than being a cucked servant to American Liberal Global domination
Poland is so cucked they don't even care they will be the first sacrifice in America's offensive
We have many "Russian-Germans" who claim to be Germans suppressed by Russians when they come to Germany...
But Most of them are just like a Christian equivalent of Turks.
And they are extrem Russian-Nationalists, wear Russian uniform (bald+tracksuit+hondacivic with massive optical tuning).
I realy realy hope that Russians fucked them Maiers up realy hard when they were living in Russia.
Which is why jamming is only one of many options Russians have to effectively "jam" our communications.
They have as I mentioned in my first post the ability to also bomb any radio transmission source which is a more permanent way to stop information.
>Luckily Russia can't do precision bombing
Someone weren't awake during the conflict with Georgia
Ok, please tell me how an typical antenna looks like.
Don't worry you can't disappoint me either way, I never expected anything from you either way.
>Someone weren't awake during the conflict with Georgia
We were called paranoid by other NATO members back then. Cue the Ukraine conflict and suddenly everyone is saying what we were saying all along.
>They have as I mentioned in my first post the ability to also bomb any radio transmission source which is a more permanent way to stop information.
Not against Nato. Nato has always air superiority.
>look into thread
>half of flags are estonian
>muh exact dictionary definitions.
NATO airspace is what normal thinking people use to refer to "airspace of a state that's part of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation".
In the next thread
>Russia declares "No such Thing as NATO"
Because the cold war started again in 2007, everybody was all happy and getting along up to that point.
But no, the kikes can't have a happy homogenous society so they force conflict where conflict isn't needed. Whether its mass importation of invaders who brazenly claim what they are going to do when they arrive, or the dissolution of traditionalism and the introduction of moral relativism spliced with anti-nationalist suicidal self-hatred.
You had nothing to worry about up until the point when the globalists faggots wanted to stir shit with the Russian and Chinese Economy and seemingly inadvertantly forced a reaction out of them.
Because it's not about what's embarrassing to read, but what's facts, and the fact is that you know jack about Russian capabilities in war and like the German here >>54832026 are overconfident in NATO's abilities.
90% of all the military might in NATO isn't even on European soil thanks to our politicians in Europe.
NATO in Europe has no air superiority without USA, the eastern block has no airforce to speak of and rely on the already small airforce from other European NATO countries.
This is something we all should be perfectly clear about, NATO only works as an idea.
It has never been tested, and article 5 is very vague on what constitutes as an response.
Article 5 does not by any means say how much each country shall contribute when article 5 is invoked or how fast the response should be.
Also in a war with Russia, Estonia and most of eastern Europe(including eastern parts of Poland) will be lost seeing as those countries has no capabilities(except Poland) and will be accepted as losses to ensure rest of Europe isn't lost.
point is, airspace violations are dealt nation-to nation, not nation-to-military block. it has been the case for decades, it has been the case all these recent years. when a US plane violates Swedish airspace it's not a NATO issue, when U-2 violated Soviet airspace it wasn't a Warshw pact issue, when Russia violated Estonian airspace the last time, it wasn't a NATO issue, whne Russia violated Turkish airspace a few times just before shootdown, Davutoglu stated that the situation was resolved calmly between the two countries.
Now NATO officials, frustrated as always with having literally nothing to do want to make it seem like they're still useful. It's a non-issue, there's really no such thing as NATO airspace
Typhoon and F-35 strong
>NATO in Europe has no air superiority without USA
IIRC European NATO has a slightly larger airforce than Russia
However, much of the Russian air force is ancient Soviet shit and much of European NATO (the smaller countries) is ancient American shit or Soviet shit
So it comes down to who has the less shit.
No but I think you are since I broke that illusion of yours that NATO is magic, and Estland having a chance against Russia.
I'm grateful for being a part of NATO but I'm being realistic about it's capabilities as a multi-national clusterfuck.
They would be the first country with any real resistance against you.
Understandably we're a buffer zone for Germany/France etc but wouldn't say they can take over in a day or two. They will get innumerable "Chechnyas" on their hand with full-blown guerilla resistance and their economy can't support it. It can only collapse on itself like their Cold War block.
Also, who has better integrated air defense and a variety of hardware
For example, Europe has no strategic airforce, i.e. many Russian military factories are more or less unreacheable with Euro tech
I think you're overestimating Russia. All European Nato members together have more than twice the number of combat aircraft of Russia. And most of them are superior to the Russian equipment in a 1-v-1 comparison. So, yes, Nato has always air superiority. Even without the US.
I was generalising. A few of the smaller countries have a decent air force.
Also the Tornado is neither American nor Soviet, it's ancient but GOOD European shit. Also the Tornado is being replaced by multi-role Typhoons and F-35s.
We are getting 160 Typhoons + 138 F-35s so the RAF is actually expanding AND increasing in quality
Yes, true, but Russia would also find it difficult to penetrate far in European air space. The strongest Euro countries are further from Russia.
Having said that, I've thought for a while that our main weakness is defending against long-range missiles.
In the Top 10 largest air forces from 2014 only two European NATO members got on the list: Germany and Turkey.
Germany is the only country you can count on, since Turkey will by their location alone not be able to delegate many of those planes.
They are on the wrong side of Europe and will most likely have they own problems with the middle east, and Russia pressuring them from the black sea.
Also any country bordering with Russia or are located close to Russia, like Norway and Turkey would be forced to focus on their countries alone through fear of being invaded, even though Russia might focus solely on continental Europe.
yeah, with Russia able to launch x-101s and the like from basically any direction, and with Kalibrs on a dozen small hard-to detect subs, Europe is very vulnerable, while only European Russia is vulnerable to whatever Europe has to offer.
You are saying Germany has a better air force than Britain or France? Really?
Do you think number of planes has ANYTHING to with availability?
You're stupid as fuck, no wonder the other posters are taking you to town.
Post less and learn more.
Dude, Germany has less airworthy fighters than I have fingers
Last year there was report that out of 109 EF2000 only 8 is airworthy and combatworthy, and out of those 4 are on air policing in Estonia
>Germany is the only country you can count on
lel, they will do everything in their power to prevent article 5 from being invoked if some eastern NATO member gets attacked, along with France and Italy.
Not entirely my point.
>Do you think number of planes has ANYTHING to with availability?
Do you think number of planes has NOTHING to do with availability?
>You are saying Germany has a better air force than Britain or France? Really?
I never said that, read again.
>Germany is the only country you can count on
Was mentioned as the only other European NATO member on that list.
I'm not saying you shouldn't count in France or the UK, but when the largest NATO military force in Europe are so unreliable as an ally how can a war with Russia go well.
I don't post in this thread to shitpost about how shit NATO members are and how great Russian military is, except maybe eastern block and Germany.
But to inform you about how weak the alliance is today, compared to how strong you think it is.
If none of you are willing to believe this, you have all been living under a rock and been able to see how much the European military has deteriorated
"Ostpolitik" is back on the menu, Hans
Also the sentiment of the German public is against going to war against Russia for defending a NATO ally
and not been able*
>Also the sentiment of the German public is against going to war against Russia for defending a NATO ally
This is mostly the truth about all western European countries.
>This is mostly the truth about all western European countries.
Pretty much. When less than half(!) of the population would fight for their own cunt it's not surprising that they are even less willing to do so for a distant foreign one.
The enemy is primarily within America. No one wins in a nuclear war but that is all the traitors seem to be pushing for, soo much harder than ever before.
It is so much worse than the Cold War before, because even our government won't admit its a cold war and our media at best just calls it 'us being in 'competition' with Russia.'
Another reason this is so much worse than the cold war is because NATO never succeeded in overthrowing a member nation of the USSR until the very end. NATO and the kikes have already overthrown Ukraine and are doing very good at dividing Syria between an East and West where all signs are pointing to them planning on undermining Russian gas/oil to Europe.
If you don't secure Syria soon, you are going to be forced into fully committing a land invasion, and with Turkey so close by that will be just fun for you to secure the Northern border, where I'm sure that NATO will demand a DMZ just big enough for a pipeline if they fail in making a 'Democratic Republic of Syria'.
If Russia had actually done something wrong in this entire scenario then I wouldn't care nor would a lot of other individuals. Its the fact that Soros funded an overthrow of Ukraine to obviously undermine Russia, and the Fact that for the 3rd fucking time some 'murderous genocidal dictator' decided to go full fucking retard and 'Use chemical weapons to slaughter 1400 innocent people in Damascus'. When any person with any ounce of intellect would see through the crystal clear bullshit of it and that NO ONE is that fucking stupid to repeat the precursor to 2 of their neighbors collapsing/being invaded/Overthrown.
You have to put yourself in Merkel's shoes. She has to balance the complete range of opinions in Europe, from the most hawkish voices in Poland and the Baltics to the doves in Spain or Italy who see no reason at all to antagonize Russia. She has to occupy the middle ground and still she said publicly Putin lives in another reality.
The general public are increasingly against article 5, also in the US but for other reasons than those in Europe.
Also seriously this >>54834484
>It is so much worse than the Cold War before, because even our government won't admit its a cold war and our media at best just calls it 'us being in 'competition' with Russia.'
To be fair here, Cold War wasn't called that for a while either. Officially there was also just a competition and preparations for a possible military conflict
It's not 1939. To quote the Canadian Prime Minister, "It's [current year]!". Britain is basing 1000 troops in Poland de facto permanently from 2017, while we withdraw from Germany.
AFAIK we're the only western country to make this commitment
The AfD is sponsored by the Russian intelligence service. So take a guess. Putin has rightly identified Germany as Euope's linchpin nation and is trying everything he can to break up the European Union by sabotaging Merkel's attempt to hold it together. Which is why she could really use more support. Especially the refugee crisis has proven as Putin's most potent weapon. It's no coincidence that Russia started a huge bombing campaign against Aleppo the day before the peace talks were to start. Putin wants to maximize the refugees which is why he bombs civilians instead if ISIS.
But if Europe leaves Germany alone with the refugee problem, Germany will eventually have to close its borders. This will be the end of Schengen and essentially the end of Europe as we know it.
Indeed but that's why the region is seeking for increased US troop presence instead of trying to get Europe in. Merkel has even spoken against increasing American troop presence.
Ah, I see
>Putin has rightly identified Germany as Euope's linchpin nation and is trying everything he can to break up the European Union by sabotaging Merkel's attempt to hold it together. Which is why she could really use more support. Especially the refugee crisis has proven as Putin's most potent weapon. It's no coincidence that Russia started a huge bombing campaign against Aleppo the day before the peace talks were to start. Putin wants to maximize the refugees which is why he bombs civilians instead if ISIS.
You're absolutely right. I agree with this completely. Except that Merkel's current position needs to change.
She must stop inviting the refugees into Europe. The EU's borders must be effectively guarded from migrants, and instead we should take the refugees directly from around Syria. Inviting people to journey through Europe is dangerous and wrong. It helps the wrong kind of people including the smugglers.
>But if Europe leaves Germany alone with the refugee problem, Germany will eventually have to close its borders.
It's a problem that Germany created with the open door policy. This policy needs to change, only then can the EU take a united position. Which should be:
Guard the borders of the EU
Take in refugees direct from source
This is also more humane, as it helps the vulnerable instead of the 80% young men who make the journey
>Figures like that are essentually worthless
You are completely wrong on this point, they are the main indicators of how large a segment of the population is willing to fight before the fight actually begins. Higher willingness = higher morale. It is not saying that a people won't retaliate if someone comes and hurts them directly and you'd be mistaken to think that.
>America's public was stronlgy isolationist before Pearl Harbor
Strongly isolationist doesn't mean pacifistic, they just felt that getting involved in the problems of the old world was going to be more trouble than it was worth.
What would Russia get out of invading Baltic states, Belarus or anything else in that region?
Of course Putin might be operating on different version of rationality than western world, but I honestly doubt that.
>people think the norwegian isn't a russian
>even though there are a few russians in norway/using norway proxy who post on /int/ and especially russia threads
>instead we should take the refugees directly from around Syria
How about not taking any of them in at all and forcing them to go back and fix it? They will only cause more problems and decrease the quality of life for the average citizens and the (too many) immigrants already here.
It is much better for the region in the long run too because it will prevent a brain drain from developing.
It would help him maintain power if things get bad in Russia. Also dominance on the Baltic Sea and Russian imperialist notions. And it secures his hometown from "American aggression". St. Petersburg is a short way from Estonia.
Ideally this would be the solution. But Assad's government is quite happy to murder anyone who lives in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they're even killing their prisoners. Then you have IS - would you want to live under IS?
These people face torture and death, they're going to try and escape while Syria is like it is
>She must stop inviting the refugees into Europe. The EU's borders must be effectively guarded from migrants
But that is Merkel's position. She said we have to guard our external borders, especially the water borders in order to keep Schengen. She is trying to rally Europe to help Greece with its border problems and to pay Turkey to better control its border. And the rest of Europe is like "meh, us paying? No that's a job for Germany alone"
Her statement about not sending Syrians back that she did in late August may have been problematic, but by that date the big influx was already underway. And the journey takes 4 weeks. So nothing until late September can be attributed to her statement. That's just an excuse. pic related.
She said that to take pressure from the vulnerable periphery. And it worked. But it's not a permanent solution. For that we need all of Europe.
how cum Russia never invade my airspace? I'm nato too god fucking damn it!!!!
Only pretty Sweden,Finland and slutty balkanlar Turkey get handsome Ivan to come and solicit them and Romanai sits all alone and no Ivan to dance cazacioc!!! I can cook better than all these cumslutdfamn fudigjdf-=gds=ghdfggdgrewreeeee
Belarus, Finland, and to a lesser degree, Sweden, could be invaded for the same reason to invade Ukraine; don't move West, and if you do, your country will be a shitpile and Europe won't want to touch you with a ten-foot pole.
NATO itself being attacked is much less likely, but the Baltics have always been a weak link. If the belief in Russia is that NATO is all bark and no bite, and a swift, decisive invasion could shatter it, it remains something to worry about.
>still believing that assad is some ebin murderous dictator who had slaughtered 100k+ people mercilessly
Wow that sure worked out for Sadam and Gadaffi, you know 2 nations that are within a 5 hour plane trip from each other.
Surely he is going to do the exact
She must *explicitly* tell migrants to stop coming to Europe. When they're interviewed over in Europe that's what they say: Merkel said we're welcome. She has still put NO limit on the refugees that Germany is prepared to accept. She has to do that, else people will think they have a chance
Finland and Sweden demonstrate that it has nothing to do with comfyness, but everything to do with how the common man percieves the nation, it's people, it's neighbours, it's history and the role all of these play in the national discourse and the wider world.
You know as well as me that the European Commission would take ages to do anything. It's a consequence of Europe's democratic deficit that the member state's leaders do indeed matter much in deciding the direction of European politics. And Germany, by virtue of size and current economic stability and prosperity, was thrown into the positon of leadership. An unwanted position but we have it nonetheless. And much depends on those decisions.
The Internet is full of Russians living abroad but praising their shithole homeland. It's ridicilous.
>Strongly isolationist doesn't mean pacifistic, they just felt that getting involved in the problems of the old world was going to be more trouble than it was worth.
And that's the same sentiment when you see polls about how many (or few) Germans would defend others. Once the war starts and how it starts changes everything.
>Top 10 largest air forces from 2014
>only two European NATO members got on the list
>Germany and Turkey
>Germany is the only country you can count on
Were you dropped on your head as a child?
>We didn't force him to be a huge faggot
Actually you did.
>The United States could take “concrete action” against Ukraine if its government cracks down on dissent, Senator John McCain warned Sunday as he addressed thousands of protesters camped on Kiev's bitterly cold main square
>“concrete action” against Ukraine
>Once the war starts and how it starts changes everything.
Russia will never in a million years attack Germany because America has nuclear weapons there, so comparing the pre-pearl harbour USA and 2016 Germany is going to prove nothing whatsoever.
My point is that any kind of war between Russians and say Balts, Romanians or Poles would not result in any kind of military intervention by Germany because it is totally counter to it's own interests to do that. Sure, there would be an unprecedented deepening of the sanctions regime against Russia and maybe even some analogue to the USSR's expulsion from the LoN, but there is no way that there would be a war over this.
But what list have you even been reading? Some YouTube "Top 10" put together by a 10-year-old?
You must have been living under a rock for the last few decades. Germany's military is literally falling to pieces due to government under funding. Its government never EVER gets involved in any military confrontations. To say they've got a better air force than the UK and France and (even more laughably) that they're the only ones you can count on is just downright retarded on a colossal scale.
>russians pretending they aren't the devil incarnate
>americans pretending they aren't opportunistic false friends
From what I've read, it was an old mindset of the Soviets during the Cold War that NATO was fractious, and ultimately weak, bound more by fear of Russia than common ideals. The idea was that NATO, built upon a decadent societal model, was too soft to make war with the Pact, and would crack given enough pressure.
It's quite telling that the Russian concept of "nuclear de-escalation", that of using a small strike of nuclear weapons to stop a war, doesn't exist in the West. We have no equivalent, since we don't believe that limited, shocking use of nukes can dissuade our enemies. But if you believe the enemy lacks constitution, it makes perfect sense.
>WE SAVED ENGLAND'S ASS IN WW2
WE. WUZ. KINGZ.
There's a difference between migrants and refugees. When she said in early 2015 to that little girl that Germany can't take everybody in that was true and referred to migrants. Her statement of late August only mentioned Syrians. What people think whether they have a chance depends much more on the rumors that traffickers spread in the countries of origin to increase demand for their services. Our embassies have been campaigning against those rumors for months now. But it's hard fighting the mafia of all of the Balkans, Turkey, parts of Africa and central Asia.
But, still, we need more hep from Europe. If the rest of Europe continues to believe it's just a German problem, this will blow up in our faces. And then it will become everybody's problem very quickly.
>My point is that any kind of war between Russians and say Balts, Romanians or Poles would not result in any kind of military intervention by Germany because it is totally counter to it's own interests to do that.
And here I believe you're wrong.
>Her statement of late August only mentioned Syrians.
The people across MENA don't listen to every word of the speech, it doesn't matter. What matters is interpretation. This is why Merkel must make it EXPLICIT and it must come from here, no one will give a toss what the embassies say. Furthermore there must be a cap, for Germany's own sake, the country can't cope with unlimited immigration.
>But, still, we need more hep from Europe. If the rest of Europe continues to believe it's just a German problem, this will blow up in our faces. And then it will become everybody's problem very quickly.
It is already everyone's problem. Look at Italy and France for example. Some of the people in Paris attacks came as "refugees"
The German military lacks the capacity to do anything to Russia and it is in that state because of a clueless public and legislators that are interested in slashing it's budgets. Any kind of declaration of war by Germany would be suicidal given the state of the country right now.
I'm thinking that it will take at least 10-20 years of goal oriented, pro-military governance to get the German army to a state where it can be truly powerful on an international scale and the push to do so would only come from a wider European war.
She can't declare a cap without having a European solution first as it would put the pressure back on the vulnerable periphery again. If she did, Europe would fail. And everybody would wish to only have the problems of today, including France and Italy.
>Or 3 years of national socialism.
It took Hitler SIX years to build up a military that LOST against Britain (before fighting Russia) and LOST against Russia
>NATO WILL DO NOTHING COMRADES HONESTLY IT'S NO USE JOINGING NATO YOU GUYS
>number of NATO members attacked by Russia: 0
>number of non-NATO European countries with territories occupied by Russia right not: 3
no, it was planed.
ukraine-anthithesis to russia, donetsk Lugansk antithesis to ukraine.
only time matters untill burgers give up whole ukraine to russia(lots of deaths will occure)
russia can feed 2 Million, but USA cant feed 20 Million western ukrainians.
russia i just like a hude dick, everyone is jelouse and envy off
but when it is hard it becomes very painfull experience.
someone should save it.
>Germany lost against Britain
How Britshits manage to be delusional in every aspect of their lives? Let guess, Dunkirk was a massive strategic and tactical victory for the British Army?
American poster, meet history. History, meet typical American poster.
>it only took 6 years of National Socialism to challenge every global superpower on the entire planet and take 80% of Europe
You aren't making your case.
To be completely fair, Communism and Socialism is the greatest nation building force on the entire planet for undeveloped nations. It only starts to really suck when you try to become completely dependent on it as an economic ideology
>it only took 6 years of National Socialism to challenge every global superpower on the entire planet and take 80% of Europe
>You aren't making your case.
What the hell is your case? The Nazis LOST against those powers and they LOST that territory in Europe. It's not hard to "challenge" a strong power with a short burst military build up, the hard part is to WIN. You're advertising a regime that was great at losing. You're stupid.
>To be completely fair, Communism and Socialism is the greatest nation building force on the entire planet for undeveloped nations
Yep, you're really fucking stupid
>major defeat and a crucial turning point
Calling it a crucial turning point is just blatant biased editing, since ther was no way for Germany to actually follow up and conquer Britain even if it destroyed the whole RAF. Operation Sealion is the biggest meme of WW2, with the cruciality of the Battle of Britain being a close second. I don't think that it is correct to even call it a major defeat since the Germans lost nothing they couldn't replace, the confidence in their nation's capacity to fight and win was unshaken and they then went on to fight a war of a considerably vaster scale in the east a short time later.
The BoB has however acquired a mythos of its own and stating the truth about it's scale and importance compared to actual British war changing wins like El Alamein and the Battle of the Atlantic only tends to provoke people.
Knocking Britain out of the war was crucial for the Germans. They had to fight Russia with a steadily increasing strategic bombing campaign via the RAF and other air forces stationed in Britain. Furthermore they lost thousands of pilots. Thousands. Skilled pilots ARE difficult to replace. Britain remaining in the war is also the only reason why a 2nd front was able to open up in the west.
A British withdrawal from the war (not necessary invasion and occupation) was absolutely vital to German success. You cannot control the Continent without beating the UK into submission.
>Knocking Britain out of the war was crucial for the Germans.
Yes, but even if they had hypothetically destroyed the entire RAF, they couldn't have knocked britain out of the war since they lacked a way to follow up on the success due to the strength of the RN.
>They had to fight Russia with a steadily increasing strategic bombing campaign via the RAF and other air forces stationed in Britain.
This isn't being discussed.
>Furthermore they lost thousands of pilots. Thousands. Skilled pilots ARE difficult to replace.
Their total casualties were less than 3000 and the Germans were churning out pilots on a much larger scale than the allies of the time. Furthermore, most of the pilots that went down were green, since the veterans had already faced and bested western planes during the low countries and french campaign.
>Britain remaining in the war is also the only reason why a 2nd front was able to open up in the west.
Yes, this is obvious and isn't even being discussed.
>A British withdrawal from the war (not necessary invasion and occupation) was absolutely vital to German success. You cannot control the Continent without beating the UK into submission.
True, but the only way Germany could have done that is by depriving Britain of the Suez and starving Britain through halting the north atlantic convoys, not the half-hearted meme bombing of random cities.
Depriving Britain of the Suez and dominating the north Atlantic was impossible because of the Royal Navy. If they had destroyed the RAF however, and gained air superiority, they could bomb at leisure because anti-air was so shit back then. But it was basically impossible for them to defeat the RAF, they didn't have the range required.
>Furthermore, most of the pilots that went down were green, since the veterans had already faced and bested western planes during the low countries and french campaign.
I don't understand this comment. Their pilots gained war experience but when coming to Britain they become green? Sorry but losing skilled pilots is a big deal.
>Their total casualties were less than 3000
Plus another 1000 captured after they ejected. These were also lost.
The Battle of Britain WAS their first major defeat and it WAS a turning point, because before the BoB the Nazis were winning, after the BoB they lost against the powers they challenged. Don't come back with the early Barbarossa victories after the surprise attack because they couldn't follow through, the challenge of the Soviet Union was failed.
Wow m8 you sure showed me
Tell me a single economic system that can convert a nation in 6 years to a global super power then sustain the war for 6 more additional years against every global super power. The real point is that the Nazis could have won the war, STUPID battle decisions lose the war not the Economic system that funds it, which there clearly weren't any problems with until they started being pushed in from every direction.
Now tell me a single economic system that will work for an undeveloped society. A society still stuck in a tribal form with zero gubernatorial hierarchy.
If you say fucking capitalism you are an absolute dumb fuck, capitalism was only possible because something called a Monarchy existed, and this said Monarchy had its powers usurped by rich nobles to form a parlimentary system which took centuries, from there free market capitalism was born.
Going from a tribal people or a totalitarian monarch/aristocracy to a democratic parlimentary system isn't feasible without outside influence in a short time, in fact I don't think it has ever been successfully done. Communism/Socialism forms a societal hierarchy which is a necessary skeleton to branch and develope future governmental precedents if you are going to skip the slow transition to democracy, if you become dependent on it USSR, Red China ect ect
>Depriving Britain of the Suez and dominating the north Atlantic was impossible because of the Royal Navy.
That is false, the Royal Navy was unable to efficiently protect anything but the barest number of convoys until later in the war, while the war in north africa could have gone either way at that point. Had El Alamein been lost, there was nothin that could have been done to unfuck the suez situation for many months at the very least. The Mediterranean would have becom an axis lake and the allies would have been forced to retreat either into Africa or into the ME mandates.
>If they had destroyed the RAF however, and gained air superiority, they could bomb at leisure because anti-air was so shit back then.
That is blatantly untrue. Many sites were left alone because of the anti air that was present.
>But it was basically impossible for them to defeat the RAF
Which is what I've been saying the whole time when I say that the Battle of Britain can't be a turning point or decisive victory.
>I don't understand this comment. Their pilots gained war experience but when coming to Britain they become green? Sorry but losing skilled pilots is a big deal.
I'm saying that a majority of those that went down were green aircrews, veterans who had already faced the british before did considerably better against them.
>The Battle of Britain WAS their first major defeat and it WAS a turning point, because before the BoB the Nazis were winning, after the BoB they lost against the powers they challenged
Seems we have a different interpretation of what constitutes a turning point.
>That is false, the Royal Navy was unable to efficiently protect anything but the barest number of convoys until later in the war
Oh please. Don't bullshit me.
>At no time during the campaign were supply lines to Britain interrupted; even during the Bismarck crisis, convoys sailed as usual (although with heavier escorts). In all, during the Atlantic Campaign only 10% of transatlantic convoys that sailed were attacked, and of those attacked only 10% on average of the ships were lost. Overall, more than 99% of all ships sailing to and from the British Isles during World War II did so successfully.
>discussion in which Germany is vaguely mentioned turns into WWII argument
>implying you need to sink all the ships to do damage
>implying the majority of the traffic didn't take place after the battle for the atlantic was already won
>implying supply disruption isn't almost as bad for logistics as not getting anything at all
Let's have a look at what it takes to cause a supply disruption:
>On 8 September 2000, the Stanlow Refinery near Ellesmere Port in Cheshire was blockaded by Farmers for Action, led by David Handley. Over the next few days, pickets were reported at Milford Haven and an oil terminal at Avonmouth causing some petrol stations to run out of supplies. On 8 September 2000, fuel protesters blockaded several facilities for a limited period and disrupted fuel supplies to Yorkshire, North West England, and the Scottish Borders and demanding that the government reduce fuel taxes. Some of the protesters called for a reduction of between 15 and 26 pence per litre in duties.
The protests spread so that on 10 September 2000 they included facilities at the Manchester Fuels Terminal, Kingsbury Oil Terminal, the largest inland oil terminal, and at Cardiff Docks. Panic buying of petrol began to close some petrol stations as motorists queued for fuel which was beginning to be rationed and reports of garages increasing their prices substantially. Rolling roadblocks were also reported in North East England on the A1 and A55 roads. On 11 September 2000, the government obtained an Order in Council which was authorised by the Privy Council and the Queen to take emergency powers under the Energy Act 1976 to ensure delivery of fuel to essential services. By now six of the nine refineries and four oil distribution depots were subject to protests.
>By Tuesday 12 September 2000, 3,000 petrol stations were reported to be closed due to a lack of fuel. There were also reports that there would be no fuel left within 48 hours. Tony Blair, the Prime Minister put the oil companies under pressure to resume deliveries. BP said that they would resume deliveries if police escorts were given to the tankers. Tony Blair had been in contact with the oil companies during the day and announced that supplies would be back to normal within 24 hours, with the oil companies having been ordered under the government's powers to commence deliveries to the emergency services. At the same time BBC News reported that the government's COBRA committee had drawn up plans to deal with the crisis, including using the military to assist in moving supplies and restricting the sale of fuel. South West Trains were reported to be reducing some of their services to preserve fuel supplies. Deliberately slow-moving convoys of lorries caused traffic jams on the M1 and M5 motorways.
This was all caused by a small segment of Britain's own population, not a foreign superpower that is waging unrestricted submarine warfare.
You clearly have no fucking clue what you are talking about, so why do I even bother responding?
>I thought I had defeated you
I'm not an American.