NATO vs Russia
Besides that even if Europe would have lived up to the 2%+ promise we wouldn't have a significantly bigger Nuke Arsenal. We might have more Tanks of Fighter Aircraft but that wouldn't really have changed the balance re Russia. This change in Paradigm should have been communicated earlier. Not just you need to be better able to conventioally defend yourself but: You will have to ensure MAD yourself. Totally different statement. With totally different implications.
If the US is still that relaxed if Russia takes over Europe by Nuclear threat (conventionally they can't even dream of but on a Nuclear level they are still a Super Power) and then collectively opposes (or at least forces Europe to stay neutral) the US together with China, I'm not so sure....
Last edited by henra; 26th Feb 2024 at 08:12.
Europe has only 'benefitted' in so far as it has been in the US interest for Europe to benefit. The US defence-industrial complex has done rather well out of Europe over the last 80+ years.
The following 2 users liked this post by melmothtw:
One argument you could make is that Europe has had to defend itself politically - keep its population happy and stop far left or far right demagogues from gaining a foothold. It has done that more successfully than the US has and that might be because of social spending that the US is slacking off on.
Hence some of the population which is less educated is flirting with the US equivalent of Erdogan, Mugabe, Orban and maybe even Putin. All such people seem "right" about something or other but it doesn't stop them from being a disaster for their country.
Hence some of the population which is less educated is flirting with the US equivalent of Erdogan, Mugabe, Orban and maybe even Putin. All such people seem "right" about something or other but it doesn't stop them from being a disaster for their country.
The following 2 users liked this post by t43562:
BTW: Wouldn't the US have to reduce their Nuclear Arsenal if Europe needed to increase theirs? Aren't there max numbers for NATO vs. Russia agreed/signed? In other words: Are we allowed to simply start tomorrow building up the necessary additional strategic Weapons?
Last edited by henra; 26th Feb 2024 at 11:30.
Hence some of the population which is less educated is flirting with the US equivalent of Erdogan, Mugabe, Orban and maybe even Putin. All such people seem "right" about something or other but it doesn't stop them from being a disaster for their country.
The following 2 users liked this post by melmothtw:
In the UK we had a liar, a lettuce and now a billionaire. We're not in a world of amazing leaders at the moment but having lived under Mugabe I can smell another one like him a million miles away and "average" is great compared to them.
The following 4 users liked this post by t43562:
One argument you could make is that Europe has had to defend itself politically - keep its population happy and stop far left or far right demagogues from gaining a foothold. It has done that more successfully than the US has and that might be because of social spending that the US is slacking off on.
The US has a global security posture, not simply a European one. President Obama told you people a decade ago that the US was pivoting toward Asia. Suggest you go and read the last two pages of the South China sea thread. You people, all of you, were told and yet you still kept your heads in the sand.
Hence some of the population which is less educated
It sure isn't, and wasn't, smart.
To borrow an analgy from the insurance industry: you all paid cut-rate prices (on security) and expected gold standard insurance coverage. When has that ever worked out?
If you want to point a blame finger, point it into a mirror.
The following users liked this post:
I think that's what I'm trying to say - security is not only military. A certain subprime mortgage issue that happened in 2008 has a lot to answer for IMO in the rise of populist politics.
The US has a global security posture, not simply a European one.
The Americans chose guns, you all chose butter
We haven't had a chance to find out yet, Incidentally, every other member has fulfilled its NATO obligation the one time that Article 5 was invoked, by the US no less. That's what allies do.
FMS sales add to your GDP, and so reduce not increase your tax burden.
FMS sales add to your GDP, and so reduce not increase your tax burden.
The following 4 users liked this post by melmothtw:
The following 3 users liked this post by Winemaker:
The following users liked this post:
It's a defense against a dictatorship and the meddling with internal politics that your enemies can do. After all it's much cheaper to get control over people by political means than by war - or at least encourage them to do stupid things and abandon their allies. Every group can find complaints that divide them - as an opponent you certainly love it when those divisions arise. Orban is an example of how it works and you can see how Hungary's past economic struggles may have encouraged people to vote for such a man.
Either way, when you see the amphibious crossing in progress, standing arm in arm singing Kumbaya with a notionally unified citizenry isn’t going to stop it. Ask Ukraine if you have doubts.
Is the UK all that harmonious? Brexit, perhaps an independant Scotland in the forseeable future. Political division, etc.
Either way, when you see the amphibious crossing in progress, standing arm in arm singing Kumbaya with a notionally unified citizenry isn’t going to stop it. Ask Ukraine if you have doubts.
Either way, when you see the amphibious crossing in progress, standing arm in arm singing Kumbaya with a notionally unified citizenry isn’t going to stop it. Ask Ukraine if you have doubts.
The following users liked this post: