I never understood the point of NATO after Soviet Union broke apart. All they are now is the big bad police gang that decides whats right and whats wrong. I don't think this is a recipe for world peace. Also the WW1 comparisons are a joke. I think nuclear weapons achieved more world peace when talking about having another great big war like WW1 or WW2 because of MAD. You fire a nuke at me, I fire a nuke at you, we're both dead. The winners are the ones who did not participate, or get in the way.
Rather than starting a new thread, I will comment here about Trump's suggestion to bring back Russia back to the G7. WTF does Russia have on Trump that would make him suggest this? If this is actually him thinking this is a good idea then, I am not sure if this is better or worse than Putin potentially blackmailing him. If Russia is so friendly and deserves membership, why pressure Europe to spend the 2% on defence? Russia won't be coming in but maybe the US will be leaving but it will still be the G7 because the other six members might send China an invite.
I mean... Trump was elected on a platform that involved improving relations with Russia. His own party and his own Congress have sabotaged his efforts at it, but maybe he hasn't stopped trying.
Pretty hard to sell Congress on improving relations with Russia after Russia was caught meddling in elections not only in the US but elsewhere as well. His Ukraine adventures haven’t helped either. IMHO, Trump has another agenda, keeping his business dealings with Russian billionaires secret and perhaps even worse stuff.
The dirty secret is that NATO is what the EU wants to be. It's a forum where the governments of the West, broadly speaking, articulates its needs, goals, and desires, specifically for defense, but with lots of parts that end up tying into that-social policy, economic policy, governance, etc. It works because it starts with that common defense focus, as opposed to (IMHO) EU, which starts with governance, and then tries to work down. This is why Gorbachev speculated about the USSR joining NATO one day in the future back in 1989-he understood that NATO had a unique ability to be an effective forum for discussion among the world's leading powers that other forums lacked. That's not to say NATO is perfect or great at the job right now, but I find it telling that despite the fact that the EU has more than enough power on its own to develop plenty of conventional power to deter Russia, the first instinct is to bolster NATO. And as far as a "big bad police gang"...who would you rather do the job? World's leading powers get to be world police; this has been true since the Dutch decided they didn't care too much for the job and let the English take it from them. Who would do a better job at enabling "world peace" (which is not now and never has been a thing, nor will it ever be short of aliens arriving).
Besides aliens arriving, world peace may arrive via asteroids or human destruction of the life supporting mechanisms of planet Earth.
I'm not sure this is entirely correct. Working in an existing framework is easier then creating a new one, so it makes sense that the first response is to bolster NATO. What will be really telling is how they deal with it moving forward. The international relations of the time period you reference led to colonialism, mass murder, genocide, and widespread misery and suffering. That international order no longer exists. Who would do a better job at enabling something that doesn't exist? This is a rather philosophical question. But if NATO wants to be seen as something other then a gang of bullies trying to police the world, they need to behave in a consistent manner internationally, not twist interpretations of international law to suit circumstances. The Kosovo-Abkhazia dichotomy is a great example.
Well I never thought I would see all the parties in the Canadian Parliament vote their support for junior wrt his spat with Trump. They also voted a basic FU Donald as well. To give a proper prospect on the current anti Trump attitude here, the recently elected Ontario premier Doug Ford (cocain Rob’ s older brother), who is slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan politically, is totally standing in support of junior. Junior will have no trouble now screwing with defence expenditures. How are those national security tariffs working for you now Donald, you moron!
An interesting Op-Ed in the Business section of the New Zealand Herald that indirectly relates to the NATO/EU situation through the lens of US tariffs and the German car industry. Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: Donald Trump's ire sets alarms ringing at Germany's carmakers Seen it this light, the US assault on the world's existing trade system becomes less of a mystery. It is not a discussion about tariffs or Ricardian theories of comparative advantage. It is about geopolitics. This is much more threatening for Germany.
Yep read that earlier. Great diplomacy from the US. Severely annoy your allies and blame them for all your problems. That wall along the US - Canadian border is starting to look real good and the US is going to pay for it.
The Trump govts comment upon the US relationship with Germany. https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=815348431989058
Poland pledges up to 2bil USD annually Poland is seeking a permanent US base with up to an Armored Division sized force from the US and is talking about paying 2Bil annually to support it Interesting move for Eastern Europe Senate may require Pentagon to study permanent US presence in Poland
It is possible that NATO may not survive the current discord between the US and Europe. This is not good for transatlantic relations and the future security of Europe. Why the head of NATO says there’s ‘no guarantee’ that the trans-Atlantic alliance will survive
A lot of things won't survive besides NATO if Trump is around for a second term. NAFTA's days are probably numbered, he has already eliminated the Paris accord on climate, and his tariff campaign could do in the WTO. If NAFTA goes, NORAD could be next, not that either Canada or the US is likely going to miss it.
Another glaring issue besides defence spending, basic scientific R&D, which of course has implications for defence ultimately. Science in East Asia — by the numbers
