Do Europeans really think they can defend themselves from Russia?

Do Europeans really think they can defend themselves from Russia?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

They dont think about it at all. Its your job.

>Do the militaries of Europe united feel they can fight against the strength of Russia and one or two buffer states?

Probably. Don't get me wrong, the casualties would be immense, land would go back and forth like a swing set, and UK politicians especially would try to justify it in the early days (looking at you BojoJojo, you tosser), but once things got moving yeah.

Of course, it'd be completely fucking pointless, as huge amounts of people would die on both sides, and very little would change. There'd be traitors on our side who'd fucking flip their writ and go and murder their local MP for the Sup Forums memes, and Russia wouldn't change even if they lost. If Russians weren't chill and a little apathetic about corruption/the government in their country, none of this shit would happen in the first place.

Of course has a point, though the GOP is literally a bunch of wankers who could sell their country, as long as they promised to make electrocuting gay people legal.

Kek this is Japan's defense minister

WE ARE GONNA MAKE YOU OUR BITCH AGAIN

>people think the usa one is in the wrong
If you completely follow the rules you are going to get your people killed m8s

>Ministers of Defence should not think about killing people...that's like, wrong, man...peace and love but let's arm Syrians bro they're oppressed

I can't tell who made that meme, the right wing or the left wing. Boith can read what they want into it

Mattis is honestly the best choice for DoD. This guy practically lives on military, military history, military tactics etc. Despite being a badass he is extremely well educated and knows his shit. Lifetime bachelor too.

>Europeans unironically believe a defense minister who wears a skirt can do shit worth shit
I'm ashamed of my continent. The military has no need of womens studies majors who got their position through sucking the right dicks and think playing nice solves anything.

A minister of defence without military experience isn't worth shit. In fact, let's get rid of that deceptive name and just call it the ministry of war like it used to be called.

Russia isn't trying to go to war with the west, they're already doing their war.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics

>The book declares that "the battle for the world rule of [ethnic] Russians" has not ended and Russia remains "the staging area of a new anti-bourgeois, anti-American revolution." The Eurasian Empire will be constructed "on the fundamental principle of the common enemy: the rejection of Atlanticism, strategic control of the USA, and the refusal to allow liberal values to dominate us.

>Military operations play relatively little role. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries.

>The book states that "the maximum task [of the future] is the 'Finlandization' of all of Europe.

written by Russian government advisor.

Spain can conquer Russia.

But they're wrong ffs, that quote is edgy as fuck

We don't do wars like 70 years ago. We are in a economy war right now.

>A minister of defence without military experience isn't worth shit.
Do you really need to know how to shoot a gun to sign papers and approve budgets? Of course not you fucking dreg.

There are no Russian shills on Sup Forums.
That's a government funded lie to discredit Donald Trump.

how

Let's assume that it's only about budgets. Do you really think there'd be no added value to military experience here? To knowing how soldiers operate in the field and actually having something intelligent to say about what equipment they may and may not need? To what degree some extra weight may be a benefit or a detriment to military operations? Or is some cunt guesstimating based on fucking nothing a good idea? Who just randomly decides that "big, strong men" can easily carry another kilo of ammunition or supplies around?

We're talking about the highest (or second highest, depending on the political system) position of responsibility for military affairs in the country. I'm not a "fucking dreg" for wanting someone qualified there, not just an extra agenda to brag about gender quotas. I wouldn't even mind a woman if she were an ex-general or something, the problem is that there's no such thing as female generals.

Dam, some of them don't even have chins.

superior discipline organization navy and industry.

>Why do we need all this trident stuff, lets get rid of it and give money to Africans
>Does the army really need new guns?
>I'm sure the Army would be far more useful volunteering at a Refugee center.

>Do you really think there'd be no added value to military experience here? To knowing how soldiers operate in the field and actually having something intelligent to say about what equipment they may and may not need?
Literally not an argument, if this were a requirement they'd need to have experienced every fucking branch of the military before they're qualified in your eyes.

And if it's a position that requires a lot of managerial skills wouldn't it be better to hire someone who's more experienced in that area? Also there's a pretty good reason to have a civilian leading the military, even if it's not needed.

(You)

Okay Chicano

>Literally not an argument
You wouldn't know an argument if it fucked ur mum

>if this were a requirement they'd need to have experienced every fucking branch of the military before they're qualified in your eyes.
While that is indeed the ideal situation, it's fair to assume there's some parallels between the various branches of the military. Another possible solution is to recreate a separate ministry for the navy like Britain used to have during the world wars (assuming it's a country with a significant navy. I doubt a country like Austria would need one).

>Also there's a pretty good reason to have a civilian leading the military, even if it's not needed.
Such as? Other than your delusion that military officers don't do paperwork?

>trying this hard to be anime

I'll let her invade me again if you know what I mean.

Literally nothing wrong with that

Our King has been in the military. They could give him the command back.

>it's fair to assume there's some parallels between the various branches of the military.
Some but no one would expect someone who served in the air force from the back of a desk to know the slightest thing about the other branches without reading up and if they read up then there's barely any reason for them to be a veteran at all.

>Another possible solution is to recreate a separate ministry for the navy like Britain used to have during the world wars
While this would fix ministers having lack of experience I think we're way too modern to need a second ministry nowadays, especially when our militaries are so much smaller than they were back in WW2.

>Such as? Other than your delusion that military officers don't do paperwork?
Keeping the military under civilian control stops them from sperging out and following their own ambitions rather than the country's.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military


I'm going to bed, nighty night.

Maybe

wtf country is that

dem garands tho

>can defend themselves from Russia?

Yes, because Russia will never attack them. Stop this Jewish fear-mongering.

Don't be rude, it's the cunt that is sadly cucked by its neighbor

>tfw no qt asian secretary of defense gf

why do we bother living