The perfect excuse for the military industrial complex to move manufacturing overseas.
Considering last night's results, I don't expect NATO to be credible 4 years from now
2 years ago by gravitas_deficiency to c/noncredibledefense
inclementimmigrant 16 points 2 years ago
So I'm going to say that the military industrial complex is already there, it would simply be a rapid expansion.
SomeAmateur -42 points 2 years ago
If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help. But the same can't really be said if the US gets into a war. The rest of NATO needs to be able to hold the fort if the US were to get suddenly ....distracted in the Pacific
BigDanishGuy 52 points 2 years ago
If Europe gets into a war of course the US will help.
How sure are you of that? Sure, if Russia marches towards the Atlantic Ocean, but if Russia decides to create a security buffer zone in Finland? Or the Baltic countries?
NATO has only survived for as long because of the commitment of the US. Come January NATO is dead as well as a sovereign Ukraine.
EldritchFeminity 24 points 2 years ago
If Europe gets into a war, the US will side with Russia. Trump has been a Russian asset since the 80s, and it's clear that he gave Putin classified documents relating to American spies and informants during his last presidency when they suddenly started dying a few days after he met with Putin. And even more classified documents relating to American espionage against Russia than the ones he requested before that meeting were found in Mar a la Go.
BearOfaTime 1 point a year ago
Hahahahahahahaha
EldritchFeminity 1 point 2 years ago
I wrote that incorrectly, it wasn't a few days after he met Putin, but a marked spike over the months after. He requested classified documents related to CIA operations like 3 days before the meeting with Putin. It's also a series of events over a couple of years because it wasn't until at least a year later that the FBI raided Mar a Lago and found more classified documents related to intelligence operations. There's no real way to know for sure unless Trump or Putin admit it, but the correlation was and is suspect by even the intelligence operations of the government and is partially why the inquiry into Trump was called for in the first place.
SomeAmateur 0 points 2 years ago
Are you fucking stupid?
yes.
p03locke 137 points 2 years ago
Good job to all of the fucks who stayed home because of Gaza, thinking that not voting and letting the GOP rise to power would actually help the situation.
Yeah, because Netanyahu's extreme right-wing policy was a problem with the US's left-wing party, right?
Badeendje 63 points 2 years ago
I doubt Gaza was the deciding factor for 20 million people, but I could be wrong. Especially since anyone that aware of the whole would see trump would worsen the situation not improve it. I'm curious why they did stay home.
I also guess Americans don't want a woman president and they do want a hard crackdown on migrants. Especially Latinos, who apparently overwhelmingly came out for trump.
p03locke 49 points 2 years ago
I also guess Americans don’t want a woman president and they do want a hard crackdown on migrants. Especially Latinos, who apparently overwhelmingly came out for trump.
Latinos voting for hard crackdowns on immigrants is the biggest "fuck you, I've got mine" energy I've ever seen.
DragonTypeWyvern 11 points 2 years ago
Or their parents.
humanspiral 20 points 2 years ago path: 0 13299357 13300314 13302351, hotness: undefined, score: 20, children: 6
horse_battery_staple 14 points 2 years ago
General education in the US is underfunded on purpose. It's how the right have won on every issue that counts. Distracted, lazy, frightened and greedy. These are the levers the media pull to get whatever the billionaires want to happen. They tried it with Smedley Butler way back when and learned their lesson. Have the dumbass voter just do what they want with outrage. It doesn't matter who's president or who's in Congress. It matters what's on the news and who they can pay to put it there. The rest falls into place.
bishbosh 16 points 2 years ago
It wasn't deciding factor at all. People get far too internet poisoned and fail to realize how the median voter is actually motivated in this country. Foreign policy is nearly irrelevant to most voters.
If there is any validity to the idea that Harris' position on gaza tanked the campaign it's in the motivated active base lost interest in giving their time, sweat, and energy to putting boots on the ground for someone that has made every promise to continue bombing children.
bamfic 7 points 2 years ago
It was, as it always is, and as Clinton said over 30 years ago, "the economy, stupid".
People who do not pay attention to politics vote like someone pressing random buttons on an elevator. They push the up button, no elevator comes, then they push the down button, no elevator comes, and all they know to do is to keep pushing buttons randomly hoping an elevator comes one way or another. And no elevator ever comes.
ZILtoid1991 4 points 2 years ago
It was a multitude of reasons, Twitter being in the hands of Elon (who pushed the hashtags #genocidejoe and #holocaustharris, but I wouldn't be surprized if he also misinformed people about the election dates), other social media stopped enforcing their community guidelines to be "unbiased", media was way harder on Kamala than on Trump (including the downplaying of the mental decay and insanity of Trump), the whole "let's try to appeal to moderate conservatives" thing, etc.
Badeendje 7 points 2 years ago
The entire capital class rallied around trump. Bezos and Musk.. media is owned by them, so the bias against Harris, asking things of her they did not ask from Trump.. sanewashing Trumps ramblings.
Your elections where "stolen".. by the billionaires.. through totally legit means.
ZILtoid1991 3 points 2 years ago
They're only "legit" if the people are letting them to be.
DragonTypeWyvern -10 points 2 years ago
If it mattered: Fuck the Dems for doing a genocide that cost us the Republic.
If it didn't matter: Fuck the Dems for doing a genocide that didn't even matter in costing us the Republic.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod 32 points 2 years ago
Millions of people stayed home. I really doubt Gaza was the reason for all of them.
M0oP0o 5 points 2 years ago
Urgh, even now before the votes are all in (this will take weeks to finalize) this election was the second biggest turnout since 1932. I hate living in this "post truth" world where everyone just goes off of feelings and emotions. People turned up, for trump.
nyctre 6 points 2 years ago
What feelings and emotions? Trump got 72.6 million votes so far this year. He got 74.2 in 2020. That's 1.5 million voters right there. Biden got 81.2 million votes. Harris got 68 million votes. That's 13 million votes difference.
And most elections get in the 60% +-5 range voter turnout.
So...yeah... 1/3 of the population doesn't bother to vote.
M0oP0o 0 points 2 years ago
Yes, 1/3 does not vote. In any election (hell what do local elections hit? 30%) My point is it does not help just pulling the 2020 numbers since those are literally the record numbers of all time. This election was right on the money for turnout, not low, not really super high.
Blaming voter turnout would require some evidence that voters did not turn out. And in this case Trump won the popular vote, so 2016s electoral college crap is not in play. This election could be cheated (how would I know at this point one way or the other) but my money is on the Democratic party just face planted harder then in 2016.
NatakuNox 11 points 2 years ago
My argument is what did the democrats have to lose for supporting Gaza/Palestinians? It's obvious not running a fully left facing candidate and campaign was a mistake.
We are mad at the wrong people. The reality of the situation is that the democrats can't win without the far left of the party. So why won't we extend an olive branch? If we get a next time, what are we going to do differently?! This is the reality. Either we wake up to that or keep losing. Pick one.
Draedron 19 points 2 years ago
Fuck the people who didnt vote based on gaza. They are even dumber than Maga hats. They help the candidate that is even worse for gaza win . No one should offer these people any branches. Fuck them. Treat them like the idiots they are just like we do with MAGA.
NatakuNox 0 points 2 years ago
Okay but if we are guaranteed to lose without them, what's the harm in giving them what they want? Losing while taking the morally right position is never wrong. We spit in the Arab/Muslim/Palestinians/far left Americans faces and they stayed home on election day. So what's the harm in at least giving into their demands? The Republicans do that for their base and are winning even when they lose elections. So I'm arguing a change in tactics because we are literally taking the insanity route if we don't.
AnyProgressIsGood -1 points 2 years ago
Are we. Is that what the demos say? Don't think black men and Latinos care about Gaza. The far left is so finicky and small
ContrarianTrail -2 points 2 years ago
So what’s the harm in at least giving into their demands?
If people refused to vote because both candidates support Israel, then whose to say that suggesting to withdraw that support wont make an equal or greater number of people to then vote for the candidate who does?
Draedron -3 points 2 years ago
They dont have the morally high ground. They chose to help a fascist get to power. These idiots should never get what they want since they have shown to be completely brain dead. But to get to your point better. Giving them what they want means losing all pro israel people to Trump. Staiying between both positions gets people from both sides. However you cannot give the pro palestine people in america what they want since many want a genocide against israel instead which is just as inacceptable as the status quo.
remembergladio -5 points 2 years ago path: 0 13299357 13299779 13300058 13317704, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 22
imaqtpie 3 points 2 years ago
Why are you such a hateful person? How did you end up at this point in life? It seems that you have completely lost all hope and are just lashing out and desperately trying to make everyone as miserable as you.
Let me give you a friendly tip, that kind of behavior is only going to make you even more miserable in the long run. At some point, you will have to move beyond hatred and try to rediscover your empathy and humanity, if you ever want to get yourself out of this pit of despair that you continue to dig. I'm rooting for you buddy.
Draedron 1 point 2 years ago
I didnt participate. I am not american. No democrat sacrificed foreigners lmao. Trump is the one who wants to harm them. I really hope you qre american and will realize how project 2025 will fuck you
Rampsquatch 2 points 2 years ago
I don't think it's mutually exclusive. Why can't we be mad the the DNC for shit strategy and be mad at the folks who stayed home?
gravitas_deficiency 4 points 2 years ago
Tbh, there’s a very dark part of me that makes me just want sit back, watch Gaza and the West Bank get fully reduced to rubble, and all the Palestinians getting put into woodchippers, and just smirk while saying “wow, good thing we dodged a Harris administration. Who knows what that would have meant for Palestine.”
Fidel_Cashflow 2 points 2 years ago
remembergladio 1 point 2 years ago path: 0 13299357 13300035 13317834, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
electric_nan -5 points 2 years ago
Oh look, "scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds" right here!
Squizzy 3 points 2 years ago
Good job the democrats alienating their base by trending right. I get you but this was completely avoidable if the democrats were competent and not a big circlejerk for themselves. Bernie could have beat that spastic in 2016.
Gaza is a serious issue, the US is supporting a genocide. If you cant come out against that then why bother, there isnt much more important to a lot of people. I know Trump will be worse for the region, they do too but if you cant take a principled position that aligns with people you cant complain they didnt vote for you.
perspectiveshifting 18 points 2 years ago
You can be rightfully mad at the party that's failing to represent you correctly (I certainly am) and still make the pragmatic choice of not getting the guy who will make those issues worse elected.
We need to come together nationally and locally to attempt to affect change within the DNC more often than every 4 years, because it seems like every time we're all reminded how incompetent they are, it's too late for us to do anything about it for that election cycle.
Squizzy -6 points 2 years ago
Didnt everyone do that four years ago, in monumental numbers and there stood a president that provided the arms to blow children out of house and home and off the face of the planet.
Biden did a lot but he missed on some vital issues and that is the fault of the dems.
perspectiveshifting 11 points 2 years ago
Yes, and now Trump will help provide significantly more arms than Harris would have, even if she kept providing the same amount as Biden. Surely I don't have to tell you that that's worse?
We need to mobilize to change the DNC and Democratic Party leadership in the time we have in between these decisions, not ignore it for 4 years and then throw away your vote in protest.
kava 7 points 2 years ago
Bernie lost in the primaries
DNC primaries are a joke. look at this last primary. oh wait we didn't actually have a primary.
they intentionally waited until the "primary" was over so that Biden could get the incumbent automatic primary votes and then let him drop out so they could rush in Kamala without having a real primary.
i firmly believe if Democrats were not trying to game democracy this presidential cycle, DNC would have had a chance to beat Trump
p03locke 7 points 2 years ago
they intentionally waited until the “primary” was over so that Biden could get the incumbent automatic primary votes and then let him drop out so they could rush in Kamala without having a real primary.
If that was the case, they would have done it sooner. Kamala stepping in was definitely an unplanned, and unprecedented, move. It's a huge risk to drop the incumbent in favor of somebody else.
AnyProgressIsGood 8 points 2 years ago
The mythical left dem base doesn't out vote average centerist group. If you are looking for a perfect group you'll never find it
jj4211 1 point 2 years ago
In support of that viewpoint, if they were ready to vote but just wanted to vote for someone who touted their interests, they'd have been there for a third party candidate, but they just were no where to be found.
Would be interested to see why people sat it out. To the extent it was something utterly mundane like "couldn't afford to take any time off work to get it done".
Squizzy 2 points 2 years ago
If you didnt want to vote gor either candidate why bother with the hardship to vote third party, everyone and their dog knew it was a two horse race. It always has been, and that is by design.
It is disingenuous to say they would have showed up for third parties when it was the same as not voting essentially.
remembergladio -11 points 2 years ago path: 0 13299357 13317668, hotness: undefined, score: -11, children: 11
iwndwyt 4 points 2 years ago
"Good job to all the fucks who repeated genocide wasn't that big of a deal lmao."
"You lost. You should really shut the fuck up."
I don't think anyone was saying that "genocide wasn't that big of a deal." What I repeatedly heard was people rightfully pointing out that the Gaza genocide would be much worse under a Trump presidency. Only bad-faith actors were twisting their words and pretending that that was condoning genocide. You fell for the propaganda... or you're one of the ones spreading it.
remembergladio -4 points 2 years ago path: 0 13299357 13317668 13318001 13318033, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 2
iwndwyt 1 point 2 years ago
For posterity, since I wouldn't want to forget to check my "legal liabilities."
Presenting genocide as unavoidable is akin to incitement in my book. You might want to check your legal liabilities.
remembergladio -7 points 2 years ago path: 0 13299357 13317668 13318001 13318047, hotness: undefined, score: -7, children: 1
iwndwyt 3 points 2 years ago
Also again, considering you're the looser, you might want to shut up and listen instead of blaming everybody else.
I'm the "looser?" Looser than what?
And, I didn't mean to trigger you. There's no need to flood my inbox with replies.
remembergladio -10 points 2 years ago path: 0 13299357 13317668 13318001 13318060, hotness: undefined, score: -10, children: 2
iwndwyt 4 points 2 years ago
For posterity since it was so important:
yoU GoT me ComRad I waS A russIAn TroLL All AlonG. I am CurrenTly In The LubjAnkA wiTh MedveDev wE'Re ShoviNg CavIar In ouR ButThoLe.
idiot
seeyouatthepartyrichter 1 point 2 years ago
Everybody lost this week. You just don’t realise it yet.
remembergladio -1 points 2 years ago path: 0 13299357 13317668 13318207 13318255, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
NoLifeGaming -30 points 2 years ago
So you want me to reward holocaust Harris and genocide joe for not doing ANYTHING to stop it? No, I chose to teach them a lesson. Don't blame us. Blame the dems for not doing enough and putting a shit candidate.
perspectiveshifting 14 points 2 years ago
What lesson exactly? That if the ideal candidate isn't run, a subset of liberals will pick the worse of two options?
All that does is teach the conservatives that if they can convince you that the democrat candidate fails you enough on a single issue, they effectively have your vote. Regardless of the conservative candidate's stance on that issue.
You have made the choice to make the problem you care about profoundly worse because there wasn't a way to make it completely better. Have fun watching that play out as you intended I guess.
NoLifeGaming -6 points 2 years ago
To teach that supporting genocide is a red line and not doing anything about it will not get you elected.
p03locke 12 points 2 years ago
No, I chose to teach them a lesson.
The only lesson you taught them is that the general public wants more right-wing ideas. What you've done is teach trans, blacks, and other minorities a lesson, the lesson that they should be beaten and driven out of their country. You've taught that women should be submissive, treated like property, like they are in Saudi Arabia.
Good job. I hope you reflect on your "lesson" in the next four years, as your right to vote is systematical dismantled.
ContrarianTrail 1 point 2 years ago
trans, blacks, and other minorities
To be fair, a good number of people voted for Trump because of identity politics as well
remembergladio -2 points 2 years ago path: 0 13299357 13301977 13303806 13317859, hotness: undefined, score: -2, children: 0
jaggedrobotpubes 7 points 2 years ago
Gloating as the Palestinians receive news that help isn't coming is something that someone who cares more about their own image than a genocide would do.
NoLifeGaming -6 points 2 years ago
And where am I gloating exactly? I'm simply stating that you shouldn't blame the voters but blame the dems for standing for genocide. Not like if harris was elected it would have been any better for the Palestinians.
ContrarianTrail 5 points 2 years ago
I'd rather lose my hearing than vision if those are the only two options, despite not actually wanting to lose neither - which is not an option.
Nasan 6 points 2 years ago
Lose both, then you can shamelessly shift blame rather than risk having to bear any kind of responsibility that comes with using the remaining option.
These people are as detached from reality as the MAGA crowd if they think they're taking any kind of moral high road by staying home.
officermike 15 points 2 years ago
Technically not... They'd still have Canada.
chonglibloodsport 22 points 2 years ago
Don’t you dare call us American! Next thing you know we’ll stop apologizing for everything and actually build a military with jets instead of snowmobiles!
officermike 1 point 2 years ago
Sorry about that. Can I be Canadian now?
chonglibloodsport 1 point 2 years ago
Can you skate and hit a top corner slapshot? If so, yes. Here’s your complimentary Tim’s card! That’s ten free coffees on the house!
RangerJosie 7 points 2 years ago
Rename it NUTO. No US Treaty Org.
pimento64 6 points 2 years ago
Expecting the US to not maintain its monopoly on the demonym "American" is the same thing as expecting dogs not to bark at the mailman. Other western hemisphere countries shouldn't have dragged ass becoming independent.
seeyouatthepartyrichter 62 points 2 years ago
Thank fuck we didn’t give up our nukes in the UK.
UnderpantsWeevil -4 points 2 years ago
What does that accomplish?
EnderMB 2 points 2 years ago
Isn't this a bit like saying that because I drive a German car that's maintained by the dealership, it's not my car?
I'm sure it wouldn't be tricky for the UK to move the Trident weapons program closer to home, or to align with allies in Europe (lol).
UnderpantsWeevil 4 points 2 years ago
By the time Russia is knocking at the door of the UK, its already game over.
That said, I would not want to be Polish right now.
seeyouatthepartyrichter 2 points 2 years ago
Russia can barely project power across its own border, what chance has it got of projecting all the way to the British isles? We have more aircraft carriers than they do and ours actually work.
Russia is a spent force. All they have is their rusty old nukes as a threat and I highly doubt they’ll ever actually use them.
ContrarianTrail 58 points 2 years ago
Nato without USA is still bigger military than Russia.
gravitas_deficiency 22 points 2 years ago
But with a fraction of the nukes, which is the actual big stick part of NATO
chaosppe 32 points 2 years ago
It took two nukes for Japan to wave the white flag. Do we really need 5,000+ nukes for anything? France has 290 and UK has 225. Thats enough to wipe one or multiple countries clean off of the map without any form of surrender.
scoobford 5 points 2 years ago
Yes, antimissile systems will shoot down most of your missile volley, so you need to launch enough that they become overwhelmed and the few that make it through accomplish your goal.
We don't know exactly how much "most" is, but its enough that the powers that be consider our current level of armament to be necessary.
Resand 4 points 2 years ago
A lot of that is because rest of NATO is under US umbrella. Not like nukes are high tech at this point. Most of Europe could get nukes real fast if they wanted, but everyone has been better served by it being to many Nuclear Powers up to this point
gravitas_deficiency 8 points 2 years ago
And I expect they will get nukes real fast. Ukraine is probably going to go for that, tbh. It’s kinda their only option at this point.
COASTER1921 9 points 2 years ago
Yep, and thankfully the EU has seen the way the US is going and started to react appropriately.
Chee_Koala 54 points 2 years ago
It seems like a very real possibility. A new, EU followup seems like a natural next step to protect the borders and peace.
HootinNHollerin 44 points 2 years ago
Next stage of russian ops will focus more heavily on splitting Europe now that UK and US have been severed off
Uranium_Green 17 points 2 years ago
Straight out of Alexander Dugins book...
HootinNHollerin 15 points 2 years ago
thanks! I couldn’t reminder who wrote it.
And later
He even used the term ‘special military operation’ in 1997…
His plan is certainly being implemented by putin
BigDanishGuy 11 points 2 years ago
It's death by a thousand cuts and nobody seems to care. Smh
AllNewTypeFace 6 points 2 years ago
Hungary can join the Russian union state alongside Belarus.
sbv 2 points 2 years ago
PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA PAX EUROPA
Adderbox76 35 points 2 years ago
NATO will be fine. They'll just have to up their game a bit militarily. If America wants to be insular and wrap a flag of isolationism around them, it'll hurt in the short term, but after four years of being more independent of Americas tit, its more than likely the US that will find itself less relevant globally.
Even before this, there was already rumblings, not just in China, but elsewhere, about ditching the american dollar standard and returning to the gold standard. That's just going to gain momentum as soon as Trump starts trying to wave his mushroom around.
bungalowtill 28 points 2 years ago path: 0 13302035, hotness: undefined, score: 28, children: 0
MrMakabar 11 points 2 years ago
Hopefully the EU takes over. It has a lot more economic strength then NATO. Also the UK is strong as well, but that can be managed. Turkey does its own things anyway and I would not trust them. Norway and Iceland are not that important. Canada is going to go with the US anyway. The advantage is easier common funding for projects, due to the EU having more direct access to money. There are also a lot of the basics in the works already.
gravitas_deficiency 20 points 2 years ago
Norway and Iceland are crucial to European defense - what are you talking about?
samus12345 21 points 2 years ago
No need, Republicans will leave it at the behest of their Russian handlers.
bouh 11 points 2 years ago
No. I mean the weapons they have now. F35 for example. If a war happens in Europe, will those planes be useful without US support and authorizations? US can do a lot of harm to Europe with that.
ziggurat 5 points 2 years ago
Yes let me explain my answer I didn't elaborate properly.
I think the only recourse the US has if European countries use these weapons without authorization is that the US will not sell more weapons.
And if Europe continues to intreases it's weapon and ammunition production like they have the last two years that might not be a deal breaker for Europe
bouh 3 points 2 years ago
I'm not sure Europe can make F35 parts for example, which will not fly for long without it, or ammunitions for various US weapons. I hope it'll be a wake up call to make and use EU instead.
Estiar 1 point 2 years ago
That sword cuts both ways. The F-35 has parts from all over the US and EU. This doesn't extend to every weapon system, but if the US refuses to support F-35s, their own F-35s would lose support too.
RangerJosie 9 points 2 years ago
It isn't credible now. It likely won't exist at all in 4 years. Unless it cedes even more decision making authority to the US and becomes even more of a puppet.
gravitas_deficiency 8 points 2 years ago
The main point I was making is that Trump is almost certainly going to pull the US out of NATO altogether.
RangerJosie 5 points 2 years ago
If not attempt to destroy it outright in an attempt to extort it.
gravitas_deficiency 3 points 2 years ago
Well don’t forget Putin
tormeh 4 points 2 years ago
Doesn't all authority already lie with the USA? If we're going to be real, I mean. I'm sure France thinks otherwise but let's be real: NATO was always the "Uncle Sam will protect Europe from Russia"-treaty.
FundMECFSResearch 8 points 2 years ago
Can NATO still mean something if the US leaves? I think so, but there is much soul searching to be done.
gravitas_deficiency 12 points 2 years ago
Sorta, but not really tbh. The US was always intrinsically backstopping the security side of things. Without us in it - and I mean this very seriously - it’s not really a credible threat to Russia or anyone else anymore.
FundMECFSResearch 7 points 2 years ago
NATO article 5 will still have use in self defence, but obviously it will be way less impressive
CosmicTurtle0 3 points 2 years ago
The article is only powerful if it's enforced.
I suspect that Putin's direct report won't really sign on to any sort of defense of European countries.
Sagittarii 7 points 2 years ago
NCD not beating the MIC bootlickers allegations
EldritchFeminity 4 points 2 years ago
4 years? Try 6 months from now.
mamotromico 2 points 2 years ago
For people outside NATO it hasn’t been credible for a long time now.
RubicTopaz 1 point 2 years ago
Love the implication that the shitty imperialist anglo organization was ever credible.
vga 0 points 2 years ago
Trump's point about NATO countries needing to adhere to the funding that was agreed with mutually is a good one and I'm super confused why he was ridiculed about it when he said it. I mean, what's the point of the alliance if we don't do the things we agree to do?
rhys 8 points 2 years ago
@vga @gravitas_deficiency Adhering to the much-flaunted spending commitments wasn't ridiculous, but Trump's framing of it was.
Back when he raised it, he was threatening to withdraw the US from the alliance if other nations didn't start adhering to it, and as recently as this year he's said he'll encourage Putin to do "whatever the hell he wants" to states who don't meet the spending commitment, directly undermining the collective defence principle of NATO.
SkunkWorkz 6 points 2 years ago
He was ridiculed because he thought that America was paying these countries to close the gap. He thought he could save money if the other countries would own up. Which is just not true. Since the US didn’t put a dime into these countries’ military spending. If all NATO countries would reach the requirement it wouldn’t move the US military budget. It’s in America’s own interest to keep the forward operating bases in Europe fully staffed and armed.
jmsy 3 points 2 years ago
I despise him, but 1 of 2 good things I think he did was call out NATO nations for not contributing their fair share. Merkel's face when he said this was like that of a dog that's been caught getting into the cupboard.
(the other thing he did was to call out drug companies for making medications so expensive. of course he didn't followup, but that was a good thing to say)
TheObviousSolution 0 points 2 years ago
The problem is the technology gap between nations. Europeans are literally sending over their smartest and they are going over because all they care about is greed, politics be damned because because to them it's a rest of the world going around in a cycle of stupid problem. Which is stagnating both societies, science, and global security. The US is using those engineers to build the most modern weapons against fictitious "if we won't, they will" enemies, weapons that are disseminated to opposing world powers through corruption except those still stuck in the system of legitimacy rapidly devolving into subservience, weapons that are getting battle-hardened through imperialistic use throughout conflict world wide through the industrial military complex.
Europe militarily has been in shambles since WW2, evidenced by how much of its colonial ambitions it had to give up. It wasn't just oligarchs suddenly becoming good. What is going to happen is not that Europe is suddenly going to become capable of sustaining NATO, it's that it is going to have to give concessions to the nations that aren't going to be cutting them off. Before, that was the US, now it will have to be Russia and China.
remembergladio -5 points 2 years ago path: 0 13317158 13317612, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 0
TheObviousSolution 0 points 2 years ago
Wait ... NATO was credible now?
RubicTopaz 3 points 2 years ago
It is the Fourth Reich
Oh wait, that's just post-WW2 West Germany
There were more Nazis in West Germany's justice department after WWII than during Third Reich
Fully 77 percent of senior ministry officials in 1957 were former members of Adolf Hitler's Nazi party, a higher proportion even than during the 1933-45 Third Reich, the study found.
Nazis in post-WW2 Germany's government
From 1949 to 1973, 90 of the 170 leading lawyers and judges in the then-West German Justice Ministry had been members of the Nazi Party.
Of those 90 officials, 34 had been members of the Sturmabteilung (SA), Nazi Party paramilitaries who aided Hitler's rise and took part in Kristallnacht, a night of violence that is believed to have left 91 Jewish people dead.
merthyr1831 -1 points 2 years ago
good?
Fidel_Cashflow -1 points 2 years ago
it's pretty good
sailingbythelee -3 points 2 years ago
I don't think NATO is in any danger. Trump has a very aggressive and bombastic style of negotiation. You saw this with NAFTA. Trump called it the worst agreement in the history of the world. But the USMCA is just NAFTA with a new acronym and now it's apparently the BEST trade agreement in the history if the world. Its the same with Trump and NATO. The Europeans are the worst freeloaders in the history of the universe...until they up their defense spending by half a percentage point to appease the Donald, and then NATO will be the best alliance ever. Typical bombastic bullshit.
remembergladio -9 points 2 years ago path: 0 13301450, hotness: undefined, score: -9, children: 2
iwndwyt 0 points 2 years ago
Let me get this straight, you're siding with the enemy occupation? If not, then why would you have a problem with a sovereign nation retaking their own country.
"A stay-behind operation is one where a country places secret operatives or organizations in its own territory, for use in case of a later enemy occupation. The stay-behind operatives would then form the basis of a resistance movement, and act as spies from behind enemy lines."
They leave spies in their own territory when being invaded in order to get their country back. How dare they‽
remembergladio 1 point 2 years ago path: 0 13301450 13318665 13318701, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
humanspiral -19 points 2 years ago
NATO colonies deserve their freedom. They need a backbone to stop being US slaves, and Trump demeaning demand terms, is an opportunity for that backbone. It is categorically absurd that Russia threatens to invade current NATO members, and the idiocy of continuing a war on Russia needs to be more obvious to the colonies.
gravitas_deficiency 13 points 2 years ago
The fuck are you smoking bro
humanspiral -8 points 2 years ago
that everyone believes CIA/US empire disinformation when a D is in the whitehouse does not mean the US empire is full of truth and love for all.
gravitas_deficiency 1 point 2 years ago
Ok grandpa let’s get you back to bed
Estiar 1 point 2 years ago
Tell this to an Estonian or a Pole or a Lithuanian and they'll punch you. You might not know this, but Russia has been working on a cassus belli (A reason for war) against all those countries. You can read national defense strategies on each of those countries to see what they are concerned about.
humanspiral 1 point 2 years ago path: 0 13302589 13332094 13342116, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
Estiar 1 point 2 years ago
I think you wildly overestimate how powerful the CIA actually is. They're barely can understand South American politics, much less control all of Europe.
Blaming the CIA is about as productive as McCarthy blaming communists in the 50s
Fidel_Cashflow -20 points 2 years ago
🙏🙏🙏 here's hoping 🙏🙏🙏
noncredibledefense
@lemmy.world
4412
1157
98
Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
go to feed...
noncredibledefense
@lemmy.world
4412
1157
98
Militaria shitposting central! Post memes, tasteless jokes, and sexual cravings for military equipment and/or nuclear self-destruction!
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
For the other, slightly less political NCD, !noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works
go to feed...
I mean if Europe wants to increase their military funding and move items in house I think that would be a wonderful idea. Because America is not a reliable partner in this at all in the past two decades.
save