I don't get it. Has Europe forgot the history of what Hitler and Stalin has done in the last century?
Every country over there should have sent arms and troops the moment the Russians crossed the border into Ukraine. Just to let Putin and the world they weren't gonna put up with that crap again.
Are they really that afraid of Putin? They should put up a united front before it gets worse.

Para has a topic posted to discuss this. Cant post link for you so you'll need to look.

There's also this one, which tends to be more focused on the Ukraine War - and its place in history - in general.

http://sigforum.com/eve/forums...35/m/3270077884/

Ok I guess.
I've read both of the other threads a few times and I fail to see anything close to what I addressed.

Guess I am the only one wondering about the history aspect I put forth.

I'll just let it go for lack of interest.

Thanks

They have become dependent on and fully expect the USA to keep the peace and order. I don’t believe any of them fulfill their agreed on defense obligations. They were too busy passing out freebies to their citizens but now their are millions of invaders with their hand out as well.

quote:

Originally posted by jed7s9b:
They have become dependent on and fully expect the USA to keep the peace and order. I don’t believe any of them fulfill their agreed on defense obligations.

The expectation of NATO is for NATO member countries to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense.

The US, UK, Poland, Greece, Slovak Republic, Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia all met or exceeded 2% in 2022, with Greece actually coming in at #1 with 3.76%, outpacing even the US at 3.47%.

Several others, including Montenegro, Macedonia, Romania, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Hungary, Bulgaria, Albania, and France, spent over 1.5% but not quite 2%, although a couple of these (Romania and France) had exceeded 2% the year before in 2021.

There are others spending less than 1.5% but over 1%, including Germany, Canada, Belgium, Turkey, Spain, Denmark, Czech Republic, Portugal, and Slovenia.

Only Luxembourg is spending less than 1%, at 0.58% of their GDP. But considering they're the smallest country in Europe except for Vatican City, perhaps that's forgivable.


Additionally, the Russian invasion last year was impetus for a number of these slacking nations to greatly increase their neglected defense spending, with Germany likely being the biggest example. So I suspect the number of countries spending the expected 2+% will have significantly increased when they publish the 2023 numbers.

They did almost nothing when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014. Most of those countries were no where near their defense spending pledges until recently.
Russia is like a Mafia run country that happens to have nukes. There was neglect for years leading up to this mess. Now NATO seems to think ratcheting up the pressure and pain will result in an overthrow of Putin.

Russia didn't really 'invade' Crimea...They were already in Crimea when they 'Annexed it' back in 2014 and have a VERY LONG history there! Crimea was and is the home port of the Russian Navy's Black Sea Fleet. The Russians have had a naval base in Crimea since the 1783, so for the last 240 years! One 'could' even reasonably conclude that the the annexation of Crimea by Russia was at least in part, a response to NATO expansion efforts in Eastern Europe.

The 'West' has seemingly done everything in it's power, by both it's action and inaction, to provoke, promote and prolong this conflict! And unfortunately, none of this even touches upon all of the corruption by powerful elites in the Ukrainian and US governments, bent on fleecing the US Treasury (and Taxpayers!) for their own benefit!

In case anyone needs a refresher, here's a video on the subject that covers how we got here re: political influence and conflict in Ukraine

At over an hour and a half long, it's pretty in depth. I chose to stream it to a TV...

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Most of those countries were no where near their defense spending pledges until recently.

The 2% agreement wasn't implemented until 2014, and in the agreement the goal was for each country to be spending at least 2% by 2024. It wasn't "2% starting immediately in 2014 and we are going to chastise you for every year you're below 2% in the decade between now and 2024."

You can look at all the annual NATO country defense expenditure reports and charts and compare. The numbers change a little from year to year, generally in the range of a few tenths of a percent up or down. But from year to year, it's roughly the same breakdown as it was in 2022, with a notable exception*. Every year, about the same countries are around or above 2%, about the same countries are in the mid-1%, and the same handful of countries are around 1% or just below.

*The only highly significant increase in expenditures in recent years (well, before the 2022 invasion) appear to be among Latvia and Lithuania, for obvious reasons. With an aggressive Russia on the move starting back in 2014, they knew they were likely next, and needed to ramp up significantly. Those two have seen nearly 3x increases in the latter half of the 2010s, going from ~0.8% to 2+%.


Granted, without the 2022 Russian invasion, it's unlikely the many of the sub-2% countries would have met their 2% target by 2024, whereas now it's more of a priority. Post-invasion, I wouldn't be surprised if that 2024 target is met by a significant majority of NATO countries, with the understanding that there are always going to be a few who routinely fall short, like little Luxembourg and struggling Spain.

quote:

Originally posted by gjgalligan:
I don't get it.

“The most common reaction to a life-or-death situation is to do nothing.”
— Amanda Ripley, The Unthinkable: who survives when disaster strikes and why (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2008)

Added:
Among other examples, there have been many mass killing events in which the victims did nothing but cower on the floor as a shooter strolled from one to another shooting as he went. Even more telling, how many of the vast number of victims of Nazi atrocities or other genocidal slaughters did anything but meekly submit to their fate? Long ago when I was in high school we were taught that there were two animal reactions to threats: fight or flight. What that ignored were the many examples of the third reaction: freeze.

There are actually two more ingrained animalistic stress responses, for five total:

Fight
Flight
Freeze
Submit - Give up/surrender to their mercy/accept your fate
Posture - Displaying aggressive behavior or verbal aggression in an attempt to ward off a fight or scare off an opponent, or even to appear to be fighting or preparing to fight in order to avoid shame

(I've also seen it described as the "Five Fs": Fight, Flight, Freeze, Fawn, and Fuck You!)

I thought that quote from sigfreund was missing a lot.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
There are actually two more ingrained animalistic stress responses ....

Thanks, I will keep those in mind, although I believe that once a listing process is started that it sometimes becomes a contest to see who can gain a bit of recognition by thinking of ways to add to it.

I won’t get into an argument about it, but my first reaction to the additional two is that they don’t add much if anything to the three.

Submit strikes me as the same thing as freezing if we don’t limit the latter to literally not moving. Simply not moving is how some animals such as very vulnerable young juveniles react to threats and sometimes that’s how people respond as in the active killer incidents I’m familiar with. My point, though, is that “freezing” in humans can also consist of the very common failure to do anything at all.

This has been seen very often in history when nations don’t react to provocations or even aggression in the apparent hope that the enemy will be satisfied with what they’ve accomplished. A couple that come to mind are Nazi Germany’s occupation of the Rhineland, and then of Austria. I must wonder as well if the decision or nondecision to allow the large Chinese surveillance balloon to transit the US in the assumption that no one would notice it like the others that weren’t noticed was another example of, “Let’s just do nothing and it will all be okay.”

Posturing just seems to me to be a preliminary stage of fighting. Most posturing doesn’t progress to actual physical combat and sometimes one of the ones posturing turns and flees at some point, but initially it’s for the same purpose of fighting.

Anyway, thanks again for giving me something new to think about.

Freezing is panicking, locking up, and not making decisions at all because you brain can't process the incoming stimulus. The funny thing is, just about everyone's initial response to unexpected stimulus is to freeze, if only for a brief period, while your brain tries to run through its OODA Loop. Those who have been exposed to stress via experience or training will just come out of the initial freeze quickly (sometimes near-instantaneously), whereas those who haven't can get stuck in the freeze stage for longer, or indefinitely.

Submitting is deciding to give up. What you're talking about with people curling up on the floor during a mass killing and waiting to die is submitting, not freezing.

Posturing can lead to fighting, but is more often used because the person fears fighting and wants to avoid it. Or like I mentioned at the end, it can be in lieu of fighting as a means to "pretend to fight" to avoid the shame of not fighting while not actually having to fight. An example is the historical phenomenon of soldiers in combat who choose to fire at random or purposely fire over the heads of their enemies.


In addition, it's not really accurate to compare calculated diplomatic/political/military actions (or inactions) to these near-subconscious animalistic reactions. The former is done deliberately, with time to formulate a response (or lack of response). The latter is done as a snap decision in the initial reactionary period of a sudden stressful encounter.

The 3 or 5 Fs don't apply to historical diplomatic choices like whether or not to sanction Germany or shoot down a Chinese balloon.

Yes, you make valid points about the specific differences among the various reactions and if we dig down to those levels, they’re true. I’m thinking about reactions to threats—and not just literal gun in your face threats—in broader ways, though. Most of the threats individuals and nations must deal with in this modern age aren’t so clear.

But in any event I still believe that the author of the book I cited is correct in her statement about human beings’ more often doing nothing rather than acting decisively when faced with overwhelming events. Training and/or experience allows some of us to overcome that tendency, but most people never so much as even think about what they would do in certain situations.

Added: In an attempt to clarify my comments, I’m thinking metaphorically. There is obviously no way for a nation to flee from danger, but when Czechoslovakia gave up the Sudetenland to Germany without a fight in the way that other nations have given up territory, including much more recently, submit is the more exact term for that, but flight isn’t so outrageous as a metaphor to compare it with instinctive animal responses. In my opinion, of course.

There’s “monkey dance” dominance BS, and predatory behavior.


Being aggressive in a “monkey dance” initiates combat - which, I think, more or less WWI.

Not being aggressive to a predator, triggers predation.

Posturing can be a useful to shut down a predatory cycle.

The issue with Putin, is he’s the head of a gang of wolves, trying to avoid being eaten.