US to withdraw from NATO under Republican bill
-
Does the bill include all military installation closures and those that are on European territories? For example Greenland. If MAGA wants out, then GTFO and I do not want hear any crying afterwards because that will give the Europeans every excuse not purchase US made weapons. I'm certain US MIC lobbyists will weasel their way in to tear apart the bill.
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.
-
"You disagree with my point of view, so I'm not gonna respond to any of your arguments because my state propaganda told me your point of view is forbidden and ontologically evil and I can automatically discard any discussion about it. Yes, I'm the one whose opinion is founded on logic"
Please explain me how my concerns about the far right rising (arguably pro-russian) and the worries about the welfare state in Europe and my support for a EU-wide military alliance are Russian talking points.
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.
-
Just removing the US from another world stage
Soon we will be completely irrelevant
Which is the plan
I wish they were just removing themselves from the world stage. What they're actually doing is shifting away from a model of direct co-operation with allied nations and strong economic ties with otherwise less friendly nations, to unilateral action wherever and whenever they feel like it.
Their foreign policy isn't moving towards isolationism, it's moving towards unchecked fascist domination.
-
Such an agreement was never made," NATO says in a fact page on its website, one of multiple pages that addresses the Russian allegations. "NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 — and that has never changed."
In the Tucker interview Putin references the meeting where he asked for membership. The minutes of that meeting could have been published to proof him wrong. In other words Russia was kept out and as an opponent by the choice of Nato.
Besides the wording is that there was no agreement and not that there were no promises. That suggests that Russia's point of view is not entirely wrong.
As I think it was a professor of mine said, international politics is about power, not good. States are always doing things to make themselves more powerful.
In that light, aren't Nato's actions forcing Russia's hands?
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.
-
Half the military and technology assets that won't ever actually be used to help NATO under Trump.
He'll veto every action that goes against Russia... Which is what NATO was originally formed to do...
US arms are still flowing to Ukraine and the sanctions against Russia still stand. I'm not saying things haven't gotten worse under Trump but it's clear that the US still has an anti-Russia policy.
-
asdf
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.
-
The US is great at spending money in the military, but it absolutely sucks at actual war.
Look how they wasted trillions in Afghanistan to surrender to the Taliban.
the US military exists solely to funnel tax payer money to military shareholders.
Maybe it sucks holding the country or building new relations but it excels at invading it and did it successfully in Afghanistan as well.
-
This post did not contain any content.
That's fine, just pack your shit and close all military bases in nato countries as well.
-
wow, even after NATO members helped US.
Yep, the USA likes to complain about Europe being security freeloaders, but the only member to ever invoke Article 5 was the USA.
-
I keep getting this sinking feeling that this is all leading up to a precise and coordinated attack of evil.
Russia bombards the EU, the US attacks Greenland and Canada, while Israel finally bulldozes Gaza and Iran. China takes Taiwan and the south sea.
All at the same time so NATO is overwhelmed and can’t decisively defend it all without risking spreading too thin. No matter what happens, one of the bad guys gains ground.
I honestly have no idea if this is even possible, it’s based on a dream I had a few weeks ago.
Disturbing thought though.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]NATO isn't gonna defend Taiwan or Iran. The US will defend Taiwan, Russia will defend Iran. NATO has no interest in either. NATO will defend Canada and Greenland as best they can.
-
This post did not contain any content.
USA showing again how they are traitors and cowards.
-
Russians are technically europeans too.
-
How would the military industrial complex not kill Trump if this were true?
-
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.
