US to withdraw from NATO under Republican bill
-
Hopefully we can trust the GG this time!
I'm sure they already have the dirt to make a persuasive argument
-
They're also threatening to annex or outright invade long-term allies. You don't want to be in a war where the people you're fighting against are the only ones who can maintain and replace your weapons.
And yet the UK is buying more American jets
-
asdf
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Also UK returned most of their colonies back to the people unlike some huge countries like russia which is still trying to expand its colonies and territories in this modern day and age. and other huge countries making claims on Greenland or Taiwan.
-
Americans have been burning paradise. Sit yout ass down and be quiet.
I mean, not to absolve America of anything, but it's not like the rest of the world hasn't been complicit in burning paradise either.
-
As directed by Vladamir Putin.
How would the military industrial complex not kill Trump if this were true?
-
And yet the UK is buying more American jets
BAE Systems is a major supplier.
-
Russians too
Russians are technically europeans too.
-
First of all, the country currently forcing my country to cut expenditure in healthcare and to put it into military is the US, not Russia.
Wrong. There's no requirement for spending as a part of NATO. There's also no requirement for the US to do anything. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is almost certainly the reason your country, whichever it is, is increasing military spending.
Second of all, Russia doesn't have geopolitical reasons, nor the military/economic strength, to invade EU countries.
They have reasons. Some EU nations are former Soviet states. Just the "restore the former borders of the Soviet union" reason is reason enough, ignoring the resources or anything else. Do they have the strength? Why is that included here. Does it matter? It doesn't have to be smart to happen.
And even if it did, the EU has nukes so you don't need further military expenditure as deterrent.
I don't know what you people who keep bringing up nukes think they're for. You can't use them. Using them will only ensure you lose, because everyone turns against you. They are only useful to deter other nuclear strikes, and also to deter nations from creating a last stand situation where you have already lost so there's nothing to lose in using nukes. You can't win a war with nukes.
Third, even if you forget all I've said above, the EU can still have a military alliance without the US, and it would be a much better thing.
Forget or dispute? You're implying your logic is faultless. Anyway, sure. They can. They don't though. I advocate that they do. I'd love to see the EU with its own defensive force. I don't want them to be reliant on the US, like they currently are. However, that necessarily requires most EU nations to increase their military spending, which you're apparently against. You want magic, not reality. You want all the benefits of military power without any of the costs. Sorry. That can't happen.
They can. They don’t though. I advocate that they do. I’d love to see the EU with its own defensive force
Article 42
And
The command was designed in light of growing hostilities between European countries and Russia since the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and in response to logistic and bureaucratic hurdles limiting military logistics in case of a crisis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Support_and_Enabling_Command
-
Wary, though I think we're all weary at this point as well.
i made the freudian slip originally before publishing the comment but decided to keep it in because it felt apt. lol
-
Honestly, the American far-right unknowingly dismantling US global hegemony piece by piece is pretty sick
Just when I warmed up to the idea that NATO was a necessary evil to counter Putin's worse evil.
-
they’re doing it very knowingly… they wrote an entire nearly 1000 page fucking document detailing exactly what they’re doing in excruciating detail.
the fascists == idiots trope needs to go bc that’s exactly what makes them dangerous. lots of these fuckers are quite intelligent and conniving. you should be weary.
One goal was to increase defense burden-sharing with allies. but withdraw from NATO wasn't a project goal.
-
Alright, you're just being a Russian mouthpiece.
Oh, Russia was promised NATO wouldn't expand? Not so much.
The entire rest of your comment is similar Russian drivel. I'm not going to spend any more time with this because your opinion is not founded in logic. "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." You have a chip on your shoulder and it's hindering your understanding.
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. None of them are good. Some of them are just temporarily doing more evil to gain power than others. Once you look at the world with this point of view, it makes much more sense (though some leaders are just stupid, crazy, or self-obsessed).
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?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Hol up. Didn't NATO guy wank all over daddy's boobs already?
-
If they're going to withdraw then why are they strong arming all the other nations to spending 5% GDP on defense? If they're not in NATO, who gives a fuck what they want?
That's the elephant in the room.
For those who don't know, Trump is threatening tariffs on Spain for not complying.
To me it means that the threat of leaving Nato is a ruse to facilitate armament for a big war against China. Fewer people would support that.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
Of course NATO is not a trusted organization to an administration consisting exclusively of Russian agents.
Seriously, are we sure these assholes even speak English and have English names or is there some cover-up going on?
-
Alright, you're just being a Russian mouthpiece.
Oh, Russia was promised NATO wouldn't expand? Not so much.
The entire rest of your comment is similar Russian drivel. I'm not going to spend any more time with this because your opinion is not founded in logic. "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." You have a chip on your shoulder and it's hindering your understanding.
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. None of them are good. Some of them are just temporarily doing more evil to gain power than others. Once you look at the world with this point of view, it makes much more sense (though some leaders are just stupid, crazy, or self-obsessed).
wrote on last edited by [email protected]"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.
-
they’re doing it very knowingly… they wrote an entire nearly 1000 page fucking document detailing exactly what they’re doing in excruciating detail.
the fascists == idiots trope needs to go bc that’s exactly what makes them dangerous. lots of these fuckers are quite intelligent and conniving. you should be weary.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Gotta make daddy putin happy
-
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.
