US to withdraw from NATO under Republican bill
Senator Mike Lee introduced the Not A Trusted Organization (NATO) Act to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance.
You're viewing a single thread.
Look how stupid your country is, to hand the death of NATO to Putin because you’re on his side.
Thanks for the war and death and heat, Americans.
Fuck you.
The death of NATO is a good fucking thing. No more US military bases in the EU, no more forced expenditure of civil budget in weapons causing austerity, no more bombing of Libya and Yugoslavia, no more US influence in European politics. If you're European you should salivate at the thought of NATO ending.
The end of NATO doesn't mean any of that. We have bases in non-NATO countries too, so obviously that isn't because of NATO. It does mean Russia has almost free reign to invade more countries. If Russia can cause issues without being part of an alliance like NATO, why do you think the US can't when it's not part of NATO?
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. And the country funding and arming the most flagrant example of genocide in the 21st century is the US.
Second of all, Russia doesn't have geopolitical reasons, nor the military/economic strength, to invade EU countries. And even if it did, the EU has nukes so you don't need further military expenditure as deterrent.
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.
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
There's no requirement for spending as a part of NATO.
Not a strict requirement, but pressure to do so. Whose idea was it to raise to 5% again? The only president who rejected the idea, Pedro Sanchez from Spain, got threatened with tariffs if Spain doesn't conform.
They have reasons. Some EU nations are former Soviet states. Just the "restore the former borders of the Soviet union" reason is reason enough
Russia has been pushing for closer political and economic ties with Europe for the past 30 years. Russia was promised that if they dismantled the communist project NATO would cease to expand eastward, and NATO kept expanding eastward regardless. Turns out NATO was never about defending Europe (because it never has), it was always about creating tensions between Russia and Europe because a continuous political alliance of industrialized nations that spans from Gibraltar to Bering would be too powerful for the US to control.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is almost certainly the reason your country, whichever it is, is increasing military spending.
The justification is the invasion of Ukraine. But as a European, the number of times our military has been used to defend Europe has been 0 since WW2, it's only ever used to support US imperial ambitions, to bomb brown children, or to keep control over colonies in Africa. Europe deals so much fucking damage with its imperialism, that's one of the biggest reasons I don't want military expenditure. They tell us it's to defend from "le evil Ruzzians" but 5 years later Europe will be bombing brown children with that money, mark my words. For fuck's sake Europe can't even stop supporting the genocide of Palestinians. How can you want Europe to spend more money in military instead of engaging in diplomacy and not antagonising Russia?
Do they have the strength? Why is that included here. Does it matter?
It does matter. If Europe already has the military strength to repel Russia, why do you want the extra expenditure in weapons?
They are only useful to deter other nuclear strikes,
Why wasn't the Soviet Union or any of its satellite states invaded by the west since they got the nukes, then? The cold war was raging, and yet there was no incident of overt military conflict between eastern and western block. How so?
I'd love to see the EU with its own defensive force
If love to see the EU pushing for diplomacy and not antagonising the largest country in the world which happens to be right beyond its borders. I would line to see a European military alliance independent from the US but I wouldn't like it spending 5% of the yearly budget at the cost of already starving healthcare, education and pensions. Denmark already approved to raise retirement to 70 fucking years old in order to pay for this, Finland is pushing to remove holidays from the calendar, and England already said that raising this budget will have effects on expenditure in social services. This is absolute bullshit.
We have the far right getting stronger and stronger due to the worsening living conditions of Europeans because of austerity policy and lack of intervention of things like salaries or rent prices. Cool, let's increase military expenditure to 5% right before fucking LePen, AfD, Vox and their equivalents get to the governments, what could possibly go wrong? Remember my words: in 5 years time, the European money will be spent not in conflict against Russia, but in middle east / Africa. Supporting military expenditure of the west is absolutely crazy.
You want magic, not reality. You want all the benefits of military power without any of the costs
No, I dont want the benefits of military power because I'm not a warmongering European chauvinist like you, I want the benefits of diplomacy, of social spending, and of good relations with neighbouring counteies. I don't want my fucking healthcare money to end up in the pockets of Rheinmetall in order to lobby my politicians to go to war. I'm an able-bodied male and I don't want my country to send me to be cannon fodder in the name of European imperialism.
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).
"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.
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?
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.
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.
Thanks for the war and death and heat, Americans.
Casting the first stone from paradise, eh?
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.
