301–310 of 738 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment really illustrates the hollowness of the "NATO expanded too aggressively" claim. NATO didn't force any of these ex-Soviet countries to join. They ran to join NATO as soon as they could. They'd experienced living with the Russian boot on their neck, and they were eager to join a collective security organization to prevent it from ever happening again.
[flagged]
It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
The EU is independent of the US. There's a difference between alliance and dependency (and EU isn't coextensive with European NATO, but they are pretty close.)
It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
> It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually. That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term. The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because no member wants to be seen as unreliable, risking their own security in the future, so everyone will in practice assist in any way they can.
Or they might calculate WWIII isn't worth it? Imagine Russia attacks Latvia. Would the US really risk getting into direct conflict with Russia over it?
Serious question, what does this change? NATO gets a bit more revenue from Swedish taxpayers? So what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does Gripen have to do with the US military industrial complex? The US isn't the ones sending F-16s anyway.
The parent comment is referring to the US pressuring all European NATO members to abandon plans to acquire Saab or Dassault jets in favour of its own F35.
The Gripen's problem is that it is expensive for a light fighter. The other problem is that uses an American engine and US can control export. There aren't many countries that can't buy F-35 but can buy Gripen. Brazil is the big one.
The French Rafale is having more success because it isn't export limited. It is better than Gripen and same price.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bigger alliance is harder to defeat in war. Also, a bigger alliance requires each member to contribute fewer troops to manage a common defense. Sweden is a fairly wealthy country that can contribute the required amount to NATO. Sweden's ports are beneficial in a potential Arctic conflict. Finally, Sweden does not bring any new potential conflicts/enemies with it.
But also, a bigger alliance creates a larger amount of territory to defend. For example if the US were to leave NATO, they miss out on all the benefits that European NATO members provide, but also would not need to defend Europe, which is where any war involving NATO members is likely to happen. It seems to me that the US gains very little from being in NATO.
So far Europeans died in USA conflicts around the world , how many conflicts did Europe start and USA had to get involved so far ?
From me a Romanian, feels very shitty that our soldiers died in Iraq and Afghanistan for America but now if we will need help Trumpists will not help back.
It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually.
> It would be nice if EU seek independency from US eventually. That would require European countries to actually fund their militaries at a level where they could realistically have independence. Which isn't going to happen over the long term. The only reason for the current surge in funding is the active war in Europe. Once that is settled, however it happens, European countries will go back to their old ways (with…