Russian Invasion of Ukraine

[Fernandito01]

Trump was right, Zelensky has 4%. /s

View attachment 1432825

CNN hahh+

 

[Liquid]

CNN hahh+

Posts: 1
Joined: 12 minutes ago

I'm sure you have many constructive arguments to share with us.

 

[TexRex]

hahh+

 

[UKMikey]

Welcome back.

 

[Eliminatorek]

Posts: 1
Joined: 12 minutes ago

I'm sure you have many constructive arguments to share with us.

We will have now many folks coming from googling
G*TrumpPlanet
*:= Green?land, Ga?s, Goo?mba, Gr?eat, G?one, Gum?p, G?un

 

[Blood Eagle]

It's all the fault to countries that decided to be Murrican little dogs, they prefered to buy us weapons instead of being fully european and buy better equipments...
Only UK and France kept a good military industry, all the rest broke down, and first Germany that decided to betray all the european interest than buying only us military. The last decisions beetween german-french weapons that went down because of the german part is obvious, they end up buying foreign things.

France and UK, and Italy is a smaller level were right to keep military industry.
Be dependant of USA is a fool spirit, and dependand of Russia aswell, Europe is powerfull enough to defend ourself, we don't need NATO

I'm glad you brought this up. There are plenty of European weapons companies (BAE Systems, Airbus, Dassault, Thales, Konsberg). The EU was created for the specific purpose to compete with the US at the economic level. The Euro was created specifically to compete against the US Dollar. They created the no passport/no work visa required border policy to create cheap labor pools within the boundaries of the EU, and they figured that being double the US population, through these efforts, would create a bigger 'country' to compete with the US's economic might. Not all of the EU is in NATO, but the EU absolutely relies on the US to go to war for it and carry the majority of the weight for it. France and Germany are now making deals that are counter to supporting the US economically. Pretty clear that they do not value the relationship in NATO or as Allies. It seems like they view the US as canon fodder to be applied when they need something.

Now you have a Norwegian oil company saying they will no longer fuel US warships while getting praise and pats on the back for standing up to the stupid fat Americans. Those ships are there specifically for their national security. No, that Norwegian oil company does not represent the Norwegian government. It's not the end of the world that they will not fuel our ships. Likely very insignificant of an impact. NATO was not created because we love pissy Europeans and want to protect your way of life. It was a mutual defense pact and we never forced anyone to join it. I know this post is going to trigger people. That's ok. Move on and give us time to remove all our equipment, personnel and bases. It's going to take a long time and cost a lot of money. If you don't want to be a part of NATO, don't. We are competitors.

Mods can ban me, put the poo emoji reaction etc. Don't care.

 

[Famine]

Mods can ban me

Sure can. Don't know why you'd mention it out of the blue though.

 

[McLaren]

but the EU absolutely relies on the US to go to war for it and carry the majority of the weight for it. France and Germany are now making deals that are counter to supporting the US economically. Pretty clear that they do not value the relationship in NATO or as Allies. It seems like they view the US as canon fodder to be applied when they need something.

The key section of the treaty is Article 5. Its commitment clause defines the casus foederis. It commits each member state to consider an armed attack against one member state, in the areas defined by Article 6, to be an armed attack against them all. Upon such attack, each member state is to assist by taking "such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." The article has only been invoked once, but considered in a number of other cases.

Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO history, after the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001.[51][52]

Following the September 11 attacks, George Robertson, Baron Robertson of Port Ellen of the United Kingdom telephoned Colin Powell and said that declaring an Article 5 contingency would be a useful political statement for NATO to make. The United States indicated it had no interest in making such a request itself, however, would not object to the council taking such action on its own.[/quote]

The revisionism here is quite astounding, but that's because it's akin to blaming a woman for seeking divorce b/c it doesn't want to acknowledge her husband slapped her for not making dinner. These things wouldn't be happening if Trump wasn't the one causing the issue to begin with by "not valuing the relationship in NATO or as Allies".

But, conservatives love playing victim for things they create as is the case here.

 

[Touring Mars]

Now you have a Norwegian oil company saying they will no longer fuel US warships while getting praise and pats on the back for standing up to the stupid fat Americans.

No, just one in particular.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The EU was created for the specific purpose to compete with the US at the economic level. The Euro was created specifically to compete against the US Dollar. They created the no passport/no work visa required border policy to create cheap labor pools within the boundaries of the EU, and they figured that being double the US population, through these efforts, would create a bigger 'country' to compete with the US's economic might.

This doesn't create a single unified military budget. The US has a tax base under one consistent policy that far outstrips any European country, it can therefore commit to spending far in excess of what European nations can. US military spending is more than 100% of the GDP of 80% of individual European countries. It's simply not possible to spend the kind of money required that America does on weapons unless you have a comparable population paying a comparable amount of tax to a single government, who then gets to spend that money back in it's own industry, so it's more like shuffling the money around your own country - not potentially having to give it to other countries as most of Europe would have to do. Half the worlds top 100 defence contractors are American - of course the Rapeublicans want other countries to spend more on defence, a lot of it probably ends up in American bank accounts.