The US should've dissolved NATO after the Soviet Union collapse to ensure European states didn't use it as a crutch to end up in the state they are in now.
A lot easier to build up a force to defend yourself if your rival neighbour is having internal issues than leave it to EXTREMELY last minute...
Europe is LONG past the stage of being the armoury that it once was in the world. It'll make things here and there that are top tier like the harrier jump jet or certain tanks Nd guns but they've long been eclipsed by the US in terms of innovation and don't have the facilities to rearm their current equipment quickly.
The US should've dissolved NATO after the Soviet Union collapse to ensure European states didn't use it as a crutch to end up in the state they are in now.
You mean not entirely reliant on the US? When you put it that way it almost sounds
like a plan to deliberately ensure US domination on a global scale or something.
Not at all, they're nothing but a massive burden to NATO
NATO itself is a massive burden.
Are NATO supporters saying they believe Finland and Sweden will be a strength to NATO?
No, they're NPCs. They literally don't even think along those lines. No one thinks Finland and Sweden strengthen NATO, but they strengthen The Narrative, and it's also the Right Thing. It's a Good thing, so NPCs cheer on the globalist nonsense.
Honestly, I'd be very, very worried, if I lived in that part of the world. You've got two major concerns; either Big Bad Russia invades you (unlikely in my opinion, at least at the moment), or the West uses you as a false flag. It's the cold war all over again; you're stuck between Russia and the West, and someone is at some point likely to find it in their own best interests to fuck you in the ass.
I'm aware. I was referring to when Bush refused the Russians entry into NATO post fall of the USSR. That's when the mask slipped and it became apparent to quite a few nations, notably Russia and China, that NATO has an entirely different intent from it's stated purpose.
This is a really good thing to point out every time Ukraine comes up. Russia 20 years ago was not any more belligerent than a NATO member like Turkey now (who is in indefinite conflict with the Kurds)... IIRC.
I downvote because it's just a repeat of all his other threads on this topic. For Finland and Sweden to be a burden on NATO, their membership would have to create meaningful obligations for the rest of NATO. Having to come to their defense if they are ever attacked only matters if they're ever attacked, which they aren't going to be.
NATO should be a European project only to keep the Europeans from killing themselves. The Euros aren't fucking and they are bringing Muslims into their country who will NOT join the culture. Europe is an evolutionary dead end in three decades. Wed do best to get the fuck out of treaties with the death cult homeland.
In the event of a war, I'd expect those military bases would be targeted first. So you're correct, but that's only under the assumption war is never officially declared.
But the point is that if Russia attacks our bases, they're immediately at war with us, which serves as a deterrent and means that it doesn't matter all that much if Finland's and Sweden's forces look weak.
NATO is a burden to the USA
Yer goddamn right.
The US should've dissolved NATO after the Soviet Union collapse to ensure European states didn't use it as a crutch to end up in the state they are in now.
A lot easier to build up a force to defend yourself if your rival neighbour is having internal issues than leave it to EXTREMELY last minute...
Does Europe have any weapons left after they "donated" it all to Ukraine?
Pretty sure Ukraine and Russia are the only countries with any weapons, at this point.
Europe is LONG past the stage of being the armoury that it once was in the world. It'll make things here and there that are top tier like the harrier jump jet or certain tanks Nd guns but they've long been eclipsed by the US in terms of innovation and don't have the facilities to rearm their current equipment quickly.
You mean not entirely reliant on the US? When you put it that way it almost sounds like a plan to deliberately ensure US domination on a global scale or something.
NATO itself is a massive burden.
No, they're NPCs. They literally don't even think along those lines. No one thinks Finland and Sweden strengthen NATO, but they strengthen The Narrative, and it's also the Right Thing. It's a Good thing, so NPCs cheer on the globalist nonsense.
Honestly, I'd be very, very worried, if I lived in that part of the world. You've got two major concerns; either Big Bad Russia invades you (unlikely in my opinion, at least at the moment), or the West uses you as a false flag. It's the cold war all over again; you're stuck between Russia and the West, and someone is at some point likely to find it in their own best interests to fuck you in the ass.
NATO should have been disbanded more than twenty years ago.
I'm probably going to make you feel a bit old now, but the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. That's over 30 years ago now.
I'm aware. I was referring to when Bush refused the Russians entry into NATO post fall of the USSR. That's when the mask slipped and it became apparent to quite a few nations, notably Russia and China, that NATO has an entirely different intent from it's stated purpose.
This is a really good thing to point out every time Ukraine comes up. Russia 20 years ago was not any more belligerent than a NATO member like Turkey now (who is in indefinite conflict with the Kurds)... IIRC.
It always amuses me on these topics; someone always comes in and hits most comments with a downvote. Embarrassing, for whoever that person is.
I downvote because it's just a repeat of all his other threads on this topic. For Finland and Sweden to be a burden on NATO, their membership would have to create meaningful obligations for the rest of NATO. Having to come to their defense if they are ever attacked only matters if they're ever attacked, which they aren't going to be.
entangling alliances with none.
Finland needs to maintain its national independence and no subsume itself to more globohomo.
NATO should be a European project only to keep the Europeans from killing themselves. The Euros aren't fucking and they are bringing Muslims into their country who will NOT join the culture. Europe is an evolutionary dead end in three decades. Wed do best to get the fuck out of treaties with the death cult homeland.
It's mainly for bases and overflight access, not the strength of their armies. Russia is never going to attack them anyway.
In the event of a war, I'd expect those military bases would be targeted first. So you're correct, but that's only under the assumption war is never officially declared.
But the point is that if Russia attacks our bases, they're immediately at war with us, which serves as a deterrent and means that it doesn't matter all that much if Finland's and Sweden's forces look weak.
Which is why I said he was right, at least right up and until war is already declared. At that point it's completely reversed.