Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
The likelihood and motive has been clear as day for years. I did not come up with any of this but I follow people smarter than me that have been warning of the increasing danger of this since 2008.
It merely depended on a sliding scale of reduced capability of the members of NATO, particularity the US and Germany, and the increased of capability of RUS/PRC. It also required the same inversion of will.
|
Ding, ding, ding, bingo, yessir, spot on!! If the purpose of NATO is a defense against Russia, then do what is militarily and willfully necessary. Depending on the U.S. military to protect the world, for a host of reasons including the cost and the fluctuating leadership of US politics, is stupid if not suicidal.
Europe, with support from America, needed to be cohesive in a bold face to Russia, investing its superior wealth and potential power as an ugly and frightful face that glared at Russia's threats with a "don't tread on me" or I'll kick your ass demeanor. And BTW, if you want to sell us gas you can disarm and we can do the same and be peaceful trading partners. Otherwise, shove off and crawl back to your commie $hithole and expect self destruction if you eff with us.
No doubt it could have been stated more diplomatically . . . but the message should still have been basically the same stallwart and severe and constant message. And, yeah, Ukraine should have been allowed in as a NATO member long ago.
Threaded Mode