Look over here!! Don’t look there!!! If you try to look at two things at the same time then how dare!! You don’t care about the other thing and I’m going call you a war monger!! You are so pathetic. Stop gaslighting.
The US is probably better at honoring international agreements than most, as its reputation is on the line. But that has nothing to do with the point that it was independent. The negotiation with the Taliban started in 2018 and the peace deal was signed in Feb 2020, well before the Russia amassing troops in 2021. You have presented zero evidence that there is a connection. Even if there is one, I'm not sure what's your point is. Americans wanted out of Afghanistan. We indeed don't know what Putin's ultimate plan is. We can only speculate. We should not assume with certainty that it's a fantasy that he would invade a NATO nation. This could happen if and once he wins the war in Ukraine. We do have an idea of his ideology and goals from over a decade of speeches he has given in public. Foolish to ignore that. Difference in interpretation, then. Some Americans want Europe to pick up most of the financial slack for Ukraine. Some want the US to continue to provide intelligence support while stop providing $$$. To abandon means to completely provide no support and does care for anyone else to pick up the slack. I read your post clearly. You said, "I was one of those people who did not believe Russia would invade Ukraine." So I asked again: You were wrong about Putin before, so why are you so sure you are right about Putin now (that he wouldn't dare to invade a NATO nation)? Too many assumptions. India has a non-alignment strategy, where they choose to be non-participatory in any military affairs but choose to have the freedom of actions as they see best fit for them. They may or may not continue to do business with Russia. They will not sanction Russia. I have no idea what China will do. Russia might not care what India and China will ultimately do. They didn't have much of a guarantee of what each of them will do before they invaded Ukraine. That's correct. Russia does not have the capacity to fight a bigger war as long as their war with Ukraine continues or if they lose. If they win, emboldened, they may become aggressive toward a NATO state.
It means you're right that they are spending more now, but they have been historical tightwads and freeloaders up until the 2nd Ukraine invasion to the point where their militaries have atrophied. This is further corroborated by the accounts in your linked article titled, "Europe Basically Can’t Defend Itself if the U.S. Pulls Out of NATO". I look forward to that day as well. Yet, as Garton Ash (a strong advocate of NATO) has acknowledged elsewhere, that day is not coming soon—and may even be more distant than he’d hoped in his book. Spelling Ash's quote out, it means they have to spend more, a lot more, if they are to ever achieve the bravado Manny is trying to stoke or inspire within the EU. Frankly speaking, if Macron's speech is a negotiating ploy to Donny's (hopefully) negotiation ploy, Donny has more leverage even if him carrying out his threat spells disaster for all of us.
Yeah, agree that the Europe wasn't spending much on their military before the Ukraine war. They were in a state of relaxation, believing that peace would last. It took a war near their backyard to wake them up.
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Only 3 NATO partners picked up their spending to the 2% defense to GDP mark in its aftermath and called it a day after slapping some sanctions on Putin. Meanwhile Nordstream 1 and 2 were being hailed as cornerstones for Germany's successful transition to a Green Economy sans nuclear energy. Nope, they are tightwads and freeloaders. Media conditioning discourages anyone from admitting that Trump was right for anything, so he "wasn't wrong" for calling NATO partners out for their spending at the 2018 NATO summit. His current approach is loathsome, but being an apologist for Euro allies prior defense spending to strike a stark contrast of it doesn't help their side of the argument, that the value our EU allies bring goes beyond simple GDP spends.
After the 2014 annexation, they still didn't believe Putin would invade Ukraine and treated him as a partner, not a potential deadly enemy. Trump wasn't the first; he was just the one you hear about. The complaint that other NATO states didn't spend at or above the 2% of GDP guideline started in 2014 by the Obama administration after Russia attacked Crimea. Obama mentioned it in 2014, and the press reported on it in 2014 and 2015. The Obama administration is displaying increasing impatience with the military spending of America’s NATO partners. According to The Telegraph, President Obama admonished British Prime Minister David Cameron during a private meeting in January not to cut the UK defense budget below the benchmark of 2% of the country’s gross domestic product. The 2% figure is the standard that NATO members adopted as a goal for the minimum level of defense spending following the alliance summit in 2006. One source told The Telegraph that Obama stressed to Cameron that “if Britain doesn’t spend 2% on defense, than no one in Europe will.” At a meeting of NATO defense ministers in February 2014, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warned his European counterparts that they must step up their commitment to the Alliance or watch it become irrelevant. The current path of declining European defense budgets, he emphasized, “is not sustainable. Our alliance can endure only as long as we are willing to fight for it, and invest in it.” Rebalancing NATO’s “burden‐sharing and capabilities,” Hagel stressed, “is mandatory — not elective.” The tone of his message was firm. “America’s contributions in NATO remain starkly disproportionate, so adjustments in the US defense budget cannot become an excuse for further cuts in European defense spending.” It had some effect, but mostly Europeans didn't care. Trump wasn't effective (yes, they do think he's an idiot and mostly just ignored him). You can say Biden is effective since many of them are ramping up their spending during Biden's administration and meeting or exceeding the 2% guideline, but it's really due to Russia's full invasion. Reference: https://www.cato.org/commentary/nato-european-spending-us-grievances# https://obamawhitehouse.archives.go...-president-obama-nato-summit-press-conference
I don't know what we're debating anymore ...whether you're agreeing with me that the Euros are historical tightwads despite Ukraine being invaded at their doorstep the first time or disagreeing with my last reply to discredit any value in Trump Admin's approach to NATO. Getting 4 out of 7 new compliant nations to spend more during his term discredits the premise that "Trump wasn't effective." https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2021/6/pdf/210611-pr-2021-094-en.pdf That whole Being Dependent Upon Russian Natural Gas thing means that not only did "they not care", but they were mostly bought and sold to look the other way.
Sure I share your view that many non-US NATO states didn't spend sufficiently. I disagree about Trump's effectiveness. Obama did have somewhat of an impact, and both the pandemic and the war played significant roles. Another perspective is examining the annual % change in the group (excluding the US). Following the Obama administration's complaint, overall defense spending showed a YoY increase. It plateaued during the Trump years, slowed down amid the pandemic, and surged post-war.
Yeah I agree with that too. I think Obama will be judged as weak in Foreign Policy, if not already, despite being loved enough to get a Nobel Peace Prize nomination... Trump gets credit in the sense of calling them out and instilling the fear of God to make them more self reliant, but his erratic Wild Card diplomacy doesn't inspire confidence in any long term level. There is like zero long term game theory involved and makes each of his transactions like a game of online holdem, where he's that guy who enters a table and starts going All In after a couple of minutes. Rocketman Kim supposedly has become more belligerent because he felt disappointed nothing changed after Trump met with him in person, and is convinced nothing would change even if NK becomes more aggressive. More fun on the horizon.
which is why there is a contingency of Americans who don’t, can’t, or won’t grasp what’s going on. They are too far removed and too ignorant to understand the scale and implications. People are at war with us ,freedom, and democracy in general and that’s a fact jack,,,,eewww yeah (insert chainsaw here )
Yep, if we don't stop Russia now, and beat them back - we will be in WW3 within 10 years against them. DD
I know I say this is every week... But how is it possible for a grown ass adult to be as ****ing r****ded as you? Have you thought about taking your ****** to ukraine and fighting yourself?
Chillax homeo - hate has filled you with rage - calm your t***. If we have to go to war with Russia and It is NATO vs Russia it will all be over soon as the leadership of Russia will execute Putin and sue for peace. DD
Don't forget Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem for no reason which pissed off Palestinians and hamas states as one of the reasons they attacked in Oct 7. Trump was such a disaster on so many fronts that folks don't grasp
British soldiers helping fire Ukrainian missiles, Olaf Scholz reveals German chancellor criticised for ‘flagrant abuse of intelligence’ that could endanger UK personnel on the ground and help the Russians https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...diers-help-ukraine-fire-missiles-olaf-scholz/
