How is it weakening NATO by expecting other members pulling their weight?
Wrecking NATO
- Thread starter OKSTATE1
- Start date
Asking NATO allies to contribute the agreed upon minimum to defense spending is weakening it? Interesting. Maybe you can explain that logic to a regular joe like me. I would think that issues like the lack of readiness of Germany's military would weaken NATO.
The strength of NATO is in the unity, the one focus the mission.......any disagreements should be aired in the proper forum..................Since 1947, every Russian leaders number one priority was to try to cause splits among NATO members, now our President is doing that for them, as I said, NATO was formed for the security of the United States........If Europe were to ever fall, either militarily or politically the US would be severely degraded
NATO member countries have until 2024 to meet the 2% spending, every country is on schedule to make that mark before 2024
Apparently the message has not been getting through or is just being ignored. There is no unity if you're the only one ready to act.
What part of the mission are the other nations of NATO prepared?
What part of the mission are the other nations of NATO prepared?
NATO as a whole is very prepared, but its mission has changed since the Cold War, and is still changing, each country does different things, Germany for example has been the most active country in Afghanistan aside from the US, The UK and France along with the US are Nuclear powers, the UK also has three Nimitz class sized aircraft carriers becoming operational, other countries provide logistics, Iceland doesn't even have a military but is strategic ........The US does not have the capability of engaging in a war alone, at least not a sustained one, we need our allies. If we decided to "go it alone" as the President stated yesterday our defense spending would have to increase an incredible amount, it is much cheaper for us to support alliances like NATO and our allies around the world than try to cover all our national security issues by ourselves
UK who decides that China sinking a US ship is “an act of war?” Before Russia went into the Crimea they lopped off parts of The Republic of Georgia, what happened? Well nothing....and Russia is such a threat now NATO members want to buy oil/gas from Russia.
Article 5 is not going to compel NATO to attack China and even if it did what does NATO outside the US bring to the table? Ground troops, okay that’s plausible (although I doubt anyone would feed soldiers into another land war in Asia), air forces (who has what compared to the US), ships (besides The UK who really contributes) and do on.
On the flip side look at NATO members now? Some want the wretched Iran deal to continue unabated, some want to trade with Iran even outside sanctions and so on.
It’s ironic that Russia argues it needs historically Russian controlled territories in its sphere as a buffer against aggression and the world (NATO) included says sorry we can’t accept that, you need to trust us. Yet the US policy via NATO is almost the same goal if one argues that stationing American troops/bases around the world enhances our security.
If countries won’t commit their resources at an acceptable level during peaceful times, how in the world can they be counted on to contribute in times of what would be close to another World War?
If they would have taken their commitments seriously in 2006 when the 2% was agreed to be necessary, they probably would have already met the target instead of having to meet in panic over Russian aggression in Ukraine to agree again that 2% really means 2%. There's a security vacuum in Europe that has to be addressed by Europe.
Heading off to dinner, not ignoring your post, will try to answer later , if not, tomorrow
It was.
Styx has fallen out of favor around here for some reason.
Styx was a Nazi?
I never did a huge deep dive into the Styxhexenhammer666 pool, but...
He was REALLY into Fascist iconography for a non-Nazi. Also one of his arguments/discussion points in one anti-communism screed video was that Nazism actually “briefly worked”. Also a bit of a Holocaust denier...not full on, but definitely questions the gassing and extent of the holocaust. Argued that Zylon B was almost completely used as a delousing agent rather than a tool of mass murder.
Also urged his listeners to follow and support Vag Vikernes’s video page...someone who is a neo-Nazi and makes no bones about it.
So I’d say in the whole...signs point to yes.
Just saying.
Also, if the best thing you can say in defense of his credibility is along the lines of “I doubt he was a Nazi”, well....*shoulder shrug*.
Last edited:
It is not just about security, it is about wealth transfer. The American taxpayer is subsidizing European countries that are very socialistic and frankly I think they think we owe it to them.
The Brits haven’t been able to field an operational carrier since 2014 when they scrapped their last carrier. HMS Queen Elizabeth is still undergoing training and won’t have it’s air wing operational until 2019 (assuming no further delays in F-35 production) and HMS Prince of Wales won’t be commissioned until 2020.
And that’s it for British carriers for the foreseeable future.
Really?
Just really?
Did you know when we first went into Afghanistan after 9/11 our spec ops were accompanied by UK and Australian spec ops?
Yes...but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have the “capability to engage in a war on our own”, as was stated. I’m not saying they haven’t provided resources or “we don’t need them” or whatever the near-isolationists are saying these days.
Honestly, our NATO allies just need to make sure they have their rapid reaction forces funded and ready if Russia is the threat they claim it to be.
The NYT has a different opinion. They believe Trump succeeded or at least got from NATO what Obama couldn't.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-13/nyt-admits-trump-got-nato-everything-obama-ever-asked
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-13/nyt-admits-trump-got-nato-everything-obama-ever-asked
Trump and Putin had something to do with spec ops in Afghanistan in 2001? You really do see your boogeymen in everything.
The Royal Navy was going to end all carrier operations, The Falklands war changed their minds, The HMS Prince of Whales is undergoing sea trials, they cancelled the third.......that is still more than many other allies, they also operate 4 SLBM and 6 nuclear attack submarines.........
As far as the US in a war,........of course we good obliterate any country on the planet, and we can more than adequately defend ourselves, but as far as invading a country such as a North Korea or Iran, we would be very hard pressed to do so alone, and it would take many months of build up. It would also leave a very dangerous situation in other parts of the world...........During Operation Desert Storm, we knew the Coalition forces could handle Iraq, the biggest fear was other places in the World, we took some pretty drastic and dangerous steps to ensure the security of Western Europe, South Korea , Japan...ect........the US could not have handled a conventional conflict of much scale in any of those regions.....in todays world we have to have our allies
