151–160 of 738 posts
Does being in NATO obligate you to respond militarily if another member is attacked (as is commonly believed)? I failed to find this clause in the text last time I looked. Edit: for everyone telling me to read article 5: I already have, hence this question. It says each member "will assist [...] by taking [...] such action as it deems necessary". That very much doesn't appear to obligate a military response, or any r…
It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
Just in time for Trump to do the rug pull he agreed with Putin back in 2018, when they met in Helsinki and Trump took care to even destroy translator’s notes. If he wins the election, NATO is toast and Putin has carte blanche over East Europe.
Poland defended Western Europe from a Russian invasion in 1920 and will do so again. Reagan was the last defender of Europe (you can like him or not, having grown up in a left political climate in the 70s of Germany, I didn't), and Reforger '93 was the last time the US seriously considered defending Western Europe. It's clear that at least from Clinton on, the defense of Europe as a necessity for balancing world powe…
I think from Clinton's point of view, at least for a large portion of his term, there was no one to defend europe _from_. Russia was in shambles and retreating everywhere.
Adding another western European country that's under no threat from anyone to NATO isn't going to do anything. We should be adding backwards countries that share borders with or are targets of major enemies, like Georgia and Taiwan. You can't control the world if all you're doing is protecting yourself and your buddies from yourself and your buddies. We need to get Israel in NATO so that the next time Hezbollah fires…
We should form an org similar to NATO but for the Pacific. Why would Taiwan join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
For example, Georgia is a candidate member, and it's technically in both Asia & Europe.
Just in time for Trump to do the rug pull he agreed with Putin back in 2018, when they met in Helsinki and Trump took care to even destroy translator’s notes. If he wins the election, NATO is toast and Putin has carte blanche over East Europe.
This ridiculous hysteria serves no purpose. People said all these same things before his first election, and if anything Trump just accelerated aggression with Russia, just like every president before him and Biden after him.
https://lite.cnn.com/2024/02/12/politics/us-out-nato-second-...
> “NATO would be in real jeopardy,” John Bolton, Trump’s former national security adviser, agreed. “I think he would try to get out.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most significant change is that any attack on Sweden would require other NATO countries to come to Sweden's defence, and vice versa. It means that Sweden would also take part in more joint training exercises, share more intelligence, etc. with other NATO members.
Surprised I had to scroll down to see this. Collective defense means expanded nuclear umbrella from the nuke powers in NATO. TFCMA/WP/Russian doctrine has always allowed a free hand for local commanders to use tactical weapons - a very tempting option to deal with Sweden[1] in the event of a Baltic/Kaliningrad land grab. Admission to NATO is a barrier to that, since the West doesn't exactly believe in small bites whe…
NATO or not, I have my doubts here. Does anyone believe any sane US president would risk a destruction of the USA to revenge / protect Sweden?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cold war was the largest project undertaken by any civilization in human history in terms of spending. With Sweden on board with NATO, defence contractors and other NATO adjacent public private partnerships can be assured that they won't interfere with that flow of funds.
We did get the Internet, space programs, satellite-based sensing, phased array radar, MAD theory, and some other stuff out of the spending.
It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
Looking at the flag colours I cannot but think that Sweden is paving the way for Ukraine's membership.
I know Ukraine will not and cannot do this, but writing off it's East and Crimea would enable NATO membership and EU ascension.
1. It suggests that there's a distinct objective/legalistic blocker to Ukraine's membership, when in reality the bar is "whatever existing NATO members want."
2. Even if #1 and Ukraine tried it, the benchmark is fundamentally unfair/unrealistic/unworkable. In this particular case, Putin would instantly declare-ownership over more Ukrainian territory, over and over, indefinitely.