US to withdraw from NATO under Republican bill
-
the fascists == idiots trope needs to go bc that’s exactly what makes them dangerous.
That plan doesn't work. It assumes that the rest of the world just sits back and takes their crap lying down which isn't happening. They genuinely think they can just take over Greenland and nothing would happen. I don't know if they're intelligent or not, but they're definitely delusional.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]They’ve handily proven time and time again in recent memory how they can in fact just do things and the rest of the world will sit back and take it lying down, though. That’s the problem. Anyone who thinks it’s just an America issue or something like that grievously misunderstands the tenuous house of cards that the pax americana and era of modern peace is built upon. Realistically, how far are you willing to go to prevent fascism? Would you die for it? Would you crawl through the trenches in a land many seas away from home? Some people might say yes but realistically most Westerners and others would never dare give up their creature comforts. It’s not delusional to think the world can change in the way they suggest precisely because they’ve suggested it - that is the hallmark of the fascist movement and what ties their collective ethos together, a philosophy of domination in all aspects.
Idk in short, I agree that yeah these people are certainly morally bankrupt. Lots of them are delusional. Any group of people has some like that. That doesn’t mean we should strawman them. There’s lots of idiots and they might think the US could invade Greenland without causing an international crisis. Either fortunately or unfortunately, these aren’t the people saying that the US wants to own Greenland or that we should go to war with Iran, for example.
The people who control and run this movement are not delusional. They’re dangerous.
-
That's not even remotely close to what I said. Try again, and don't straw man. I engaged with you, and you repeat easily disprovable nonsense straight from Russian media without any reason to believe it. No proof or logic for why it makes sense.
Again: what part of my second paragraph of the previous comment is a Russian talking point. If it's so obvious you can definitely explain?
-
Trump is not the US. by advocating for the US to leave NATO you weaken the stability of NATO.
Putin and his lackeys directly benefit from a weak NATO and thus anyone who willingly advocates for the weakening of NATO is either
- a Russian shill
- too stupid to realize they are shilling for Russia
I'm not in support of Trump, y'all just keep pushing that narrative on me. which honestly only convinces me you're part of group 1.
Fuck off fellow dumb fuck American. I hate being an American because of losers like you.
-
Hopefully we can trust the GG this time!
Better yet, stand up for ourselves and when an unelected royal appointee predictably does not side with Australian interests we tell them to shove it.
-
In that light, aren't Nato's actions forcing Russia's hands?
Forcing? No. They're choosing what they're doing. There's plenty of other options for them. In what way were they forced to invade Crimea, and then the rest of Ukraine?
If you're going to make the "buffer zone" argument, see how that's decreased since the invasion, not increased, so if that was the goal, is was incredibly stupid. Who would suspect invading a sovereign nation would make other nations less likely to join an alliance against you?
Probably the best option for Russia (not Putin though) would be closer economic ties to Europe. They are their largest trade partner after all. However, Putin wanted to leave a legacy of "restoring the former boarders of the USSR" so he's destroying the nation he's supposed to protect to have his legacy that he won't get anyway.
In what way were they forced to invade Crimea, and then the rest of Ukraine?
States are always doing things to make themselves more powerful.
That's what you were taught in school what the US does.
This book explains how Ukraine is used.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
If you’re going to make the “buffer zone” argument, see how that’s decreased since the invasion, not increased, so if that was the goal, is was incredibly stupid.
Catch 22. But Finland and Sweden were essentially part of Nato by being part of the EU so Russia loses not much and would be much more threatened by Nato in Ukraine.
Probably the best option for Russia (not Putin though) would be closer economic ties to Europe.
That's what Russia did.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
"In particular, he writes that no Eurasian challenger should emerge that can dominate Eurasia and thus also challenge U.S. global pre-eminence."
The Ukraine war creates the hate between the EU and Russia that prevents that emergence. Russia would win so much more if it were part of the EU.
Cui bono?
-
You're right, let me rephrase that. The US is the only NATO country with living experience in invading non-neighboring countries with current methods, doctrines and technologies. That's not a simple thing to do and that know-how is extremely valuable if you want to invade someone else.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]adsf
-
In what way were they forced to invade Crimea, and then the rest of Ukraine?
States are always doing things to make themselves more powerful.
That's what you were taught in school what the US does.
This book explains how Ukraine is used.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
If you’re going to make the “buffer zone” argument, see how that’s decreased since the invasion, not increased, so if that was the goal, is was incredibly stupid.
Catch 22. But Finland and Sweden were essentially part of Nato by being part of the EU so Russia loses not much and would be much more threatened by Nato in Ukraine.
Probably the best option for Russia (not Putin though) would be closer economic ties to Europe.
That's what Russia did.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard
"In particular, he writes that no Eurasian challenger should emerge that can dominate Eurasia and thus also challenge U.S. global pre-eminence."
The Ukraine war creates the hate between the EU and Russia that prevents that emergence. Russia would win so much more if it were part of the EU.
Cui bono?
I never said the US doesn't benefit from the war, though they wouldn't if Russia's invasion went to plan. Russia thought they could walk in and take over. They clearly thought they could take it all and would gain a lot from owning it; a port in the black sea and the breadbasket of Europe.
Cui bono? That's more complicated than just "who's benefitting now."
Also, again, Putin wanted to cement a legacy. He benefits most if they were successful.
However, now basically everyone except Russia gains from it. China, North Korea, and Iran get to have Russia owe them a lot (We'll see how that debt is repaid, though I know there's some particular land China at least wants, but also they love their soft power). Europe gets a significantly weaker Russia threatening them. The US gets to further extend its power. A whole lot of nations get to test weapons (and secretly gain experience) with a new type of warfare.
We can't look at the past with the understanding we have now and think they knew this would happen though. They made it clear they expected an easy victory.
-
Hol up. Didn't NATO guy wank all over daddy's boobs already?
I thought that was more of a language barrier thing tbh, poor guy probably would have used father or dad if he knew the connatations.
-
So is it their goal to turn the US into an irrelevant backwater or what?
So far they've introduced bills that diminish their own military force, decimated global trading relationships, now they're trying to back out of the final commitments they have left. By the time 2030 rolls around no one will want to be president because they'll have no power.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Nah they want to attack whoever they feel like without having to go through a meeting.
-
US: "NATO members need to up their defense spending!"
NATO: "Okay, we'll do it."
US: "Actually, We're leaving NATO."
wrote on last edited by [email protected]asdf
-
That's fine, just pack your shit and close all military bases in nato countries as well.
Hey, you know how much money they spend on having this bases? Some regions depend on it.
On the other hand... I think Trump and his mad posse wouldn't risc being such bigmouths without their Bases in Turkey or Ramstein.
Also their level of megalomanic moronity makes me fear that when the USA leaves Nato it would start attacking the rest of the world. Canada and Mexico first. Then they would find "justifications" to raid through middle america and "bring idiocrazy" to south america. Reinstating slavery for everyone that ain't "a good godfearing white patriot"... Because... the white race is superiour and needs Lebensraum.... Oh god, I've heard that shit all over in history class when I grew up in Germany in the 1970ies...
Please, anyone stop them now!!!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Incredible to observe the rapid (self)destruction of US. I'm just waiting for a couple of states to declare independence. Within a 5-10 years USA will be history like the Sovjet Union; it will break down into smaller countries.
-
Honestly, the American far-right unknowingly dismantling US global hegemony piece by piece is pretty sick
Between this and USAID I can't say I'm unhappy about it. Of course dismantling imperialism is a good thing, but I also don't understand. The republicans should be all about illegal invasions, bombing civilians, and installing puppet dictators, so they should love USAID and NATO, yet here we are. Is this just incompetence?
-
Hey, you know how much money they spend on having this bases? Some regions depend on it.
On the other hand... I think Trump and his mad posse wouldn't risc being such bigmouths without their Bases in Turkey or Ramstein.
Also their level of megalomanic moronity makes me fear that when the USA leaves Nato it would start attacking the rest of the world. Canada and Mexico first. Then they would find "justifications" to raid through middle america and "bring idiocrazy" to south america. Reinstating slavery for everyone that ain't "a good godfearing white patriot"... Because... the white race is superiour and needs Lebensraum.... Oh god, I've heard that shit all over in history class when I grew up in Germany in the 1970ies...
Please, anyone stop them now!!!
I remember german history class aswell, it might get ugly history seems to repeat itself a lot.
-
Just when I warmed up to the idea that NATO was a necessary evil to counter Putin's worse evil.
It also is a necessity to keep the USA from going Putin... Trump wouldn't stop wanting to be a King. As a King he'd work on becoming the Emperor. As Caesar Donald the step to becoming the god emperor isn't that big...
-
This is what I don't get about their plan to take over the US. It won't work because it will cost everyone money, the people they are ultimately beholden to will lose out because of actions they chose to take.
As soon as the consequences become apparent interest in project 2025 is going to drop off a cliff.
As soon as the consequences become apparent interest in project 2025 is going to drop off a cliff.
I want to believe
-
What is your point in the first place, anyway? That you know better than an active officer just because?
-
Just when I warmed up to the idea that NATO was a necessary evil to counter Putin's worse evil.
It is but losing the traitor in the assembly is not a bad thing. Now if Europe could jailbreak all that American tech they have in their military gear too, that would be nice.
-
wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Russia's most densely populated, and politically most relevant are is on the European continent. Get that into your fucking head.
-
So is it their goal to turn the US into an irrelevant backwater or what?
So far they've introduced bills that diminish their own military force, decimated global trading relationships, now they're trying to back out of the final commitments they have left. By the time 2030 rolls around no one will want to be president because they'll have no power.
Yes. The most charitable interpretation is that people have forgotten the lessons of the 1900s and think that a replay of Herbert Hoover is a good idea.
Last time it took a few decades and destroying countless lives to fix. Hopefully the cost is lower this time.
