Is there any point in keeping NATO around?

[red_elk]

I don't know, I'm not a military expert. Perhaps the point is sending a political/diplomatic message in response to NATO tanks in Baltic states, or something like that.

 

[Borachio]

It looks like a deliberate attempt to heighten tension. I think it's successful.

But why does the Russian government want to make the world a more dangerous place?

Is it to distract the attention of its citizenry from its less than stellar economic performance?

Come to think of it, are the Russian and UK governments in cahoots to distract our attention from their less than stellar economic performances?

 

[red_elk]

Is it to distract the attention of its citizenry from its less than stellar economic performance?

Russian bombers patrolling near British isles don't distract attention of Russian citizens at all.

 

[Flying Pig]

It looks like a deliberate attempt to heighten tension. I think it's successful.

But why does the Russian government want to make the world a more dangerous place?

Is it to distract the attention of its citizenry from its less than stellar economic performance?

Come to think of it, are the Russian and UK governments in cahoots to distract our attention from their less than stellar economic performances?

I think the answer to the latter is 'indirectly, definitely!'

 

[Borachio]

Russian bombers patrolling near British isles don't distract attention of Russian citizens at all.

No. I accept that.

But if the result is a more hawk-like UK (as part of NATO), then that could gain the attention of Russian citizenry, don't you think?

Or are Russians so blasé it doesn't really matter to them one bit?

I don't know anything for sure. I'm just speculating.

What's the point of sending bombers to patrol the UK's borders, then?

 

[kronic]

Even more hawk-like UK? Seems hardly possible.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

What your Russians dont understand is that you need to allow the Germans to bomb, kill and unleash war every once in while, otherwise you are repressing the German genetic instincts for violence.
Eventually that German genetic instinct for war if repressed for a long time will build up and then come out in an explosion of war.

And we both know who was on the receiving end of that German Violent war explosion the last few time ?

What you seem to miss is that any really big mistake Germany makes could as well be its last....

 

[Borachio]

Even more hawk-like UK? Seems hardly possible.

I can see how you might think that.

 

[red_elk]

But if the result is a more hawk-like UK (as part of NATO), then that could gain the attention of Russian citizenry, don't you think?

There is no point in provoking NATO aggressiveness for internal purposes. President's and government approval is good enough in Russia. And there are obvious downsides of this aggressiveness. Russian actions are reactive here.

What's the point of sending bombers to patrol the UK's borders, then?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=13696725&postcount=161

 

[Farm Boy]

Why fly the bombers? It's really not all that complicated, is it? It might be and I miss the point. It forces a reaction which is inconvenient, maybe you learn something from the reaction. But the question is pretty much the same as why do animals brandish, isn't it? Why do cats hiss and fluff and show their claws? Why do skunks hop around when they point their rears at you? Why do bears stand up and roar? Why do gorillas thump their chests? Why do people show off their weapons and holler? Surely these are all actions which are inefficient at the least if the desired goal is to use the claws/spray/fists/weapons. Might as well just use them without putting the target on notice. The value is in the intimidation, the hope that it makes the other side bluster but ultimately decide it's just not worth it.

 

[Borachio]

Surely these are all actions which are inefficient at the least if the desired goal is to use the claws/spray/fists/weapons.

Well, that's whole point of threat displays. You hope that the threat will be sufficient deterrence, and save you from the risky and possibly costly strategy of actual conflict.

But it's not a good idea with the UK. The UK has been around a long time, been through this sort of thing many times before, and really isn't likely to be cowed with a mere display.

The best strategy with the UK, imo, is to let it get on with whatever, and trip itself up with its own incompetence. Don't put it on alert with threat displays.

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, the USA doesn't react particularly well to it either. Which is why the military(people who know something about the topic) often seem to try and downplay this sort of thing. Not reacting well seems to be something a lot of those loosely organized non-state actors who like to explode people seem to count on.

 

[Borachio]

I agree. In fact, I'd say the number 1 and number 2 most hawkish nations are the US and the UK.

 

[Phrossack]

I agree. In fact, I'd say the number 1 and number 2 most hawkish nations are the US and the UK.

I'd say that, in no particular order, they're the US, Russia, Israel, France, and North Korea. The UK, maybe, but it keeps shrinking its military and its populace is ambivalent towards war. France intervenes a lot in Africa, though it's usually quite justified. Americans are mixed about war, but the hawks are extremely hawkish.

 

[dutchfire]

This hasn't been posted yet?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...s-german-army-armed-turrets-with-broomsticks/

Late last year ... the army of the country with the fourth largest economy in the world fielded its newest armored vehicles in a major military exercise in Norway with broomsticks painted black and lashed in place of missing machine gun barrels

 

[red_elk]

Well, that's whole point of threat displays. You hope that the threat will be sufficient deterrence, and save you from the risky and possibly costly strategy of actual conflict.

But it's not a good idea with the UK. The UK has been around a long time, been through this sort of thing many times before, and really isn't likely to be cowed with a mere display.

The best strategy with the UK, imo, is to let it get on with whatever, and trip itself up with its own incompetence. Don't put it on alert with threat displays.

We have much less information comparing to what heads of states and chief military commanders do. Some of their actions may seem illogical to us just because what we see is only tip of the iceberg, whereas 90% of activity is happening "under water" and invisible to us.

One possible explanation of this bombers flight can be, for example, measurement of time required for RAF to intercept bombers, when the "attack" is occurring from unexpected direction.

 

[kronic]

This hasn't been posted yet?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...s-german-army-armed-turrets-with-broomsticks/

Can't say I'm surprised. The ~3,000 Leo I and II tanks are gone as well.

 

[Borachio]

We have much less information comparing to what heads of states and chief military commanders do. Some of their actions may seem illogical to us just because what we see is only tip of the iceberg, whereas 90% of activity is happening "under water" and invisible to us.

One possible explanation of this bombers flight can be, for example, measurement of time required for RAF to intercept bombers, when the "attack" is occurring from unexpected direction.

Yes. But the Russian air force is not learning anything that the RAF won't equally learn about themselves. And the RAF will know that the Russian air force has learnt it.

But who knows whether the RAF aren't boxing clever, and pretending to be slower than they could be?

 

[Agent327]

There is no point in provoking NATO aggressiveness for internal purposes. President's and government approval is good enough in Russia.

Possibly because people who dare not to suport run the risk of getting sued 'for corruption' or murdered, or simply disappear.

I don't know, I'm not a military expert. Perhaps the point is sending a political/diplomatic message in response to NATO tanks in Baltic states, or something like that.

NATO can't send materiel to NATO states? But it's OK if Russia aids rebels in a neighbour country? Wouldn't you think that NATO sending materiel and holding military exercises might be a response to Russia annexing part of and then aiding rebels in another part of Ukraine (while lying about it)? Just a thought.

 

[red_elk]

Possibly because people who dare not to suport run the risk of getting sued 'for corruption' or murdered, or simply disappear.

Oh, you mean all Putin ratings are result of conspiracy of poll agencies. And in reality he has no support of Russian citizens. Interesting symptoms.

NATO can't send materiel to NATO states? But it's OK if Russia aids rebels in a neighbour country?

Russia can't fly planes over neutral waters? But it's OK if NATO invades and bombs another country?