1
8

[–] Awful-Falafel 1 point 8 points (+9|-1) ago 

About time. European socialists have been forgoing their own national security to pay for their dumb socialist programs and welfare for economic migrants. They rely heavily on the US and its defense spending for protection. This will be good for them too, perhaps make them take a good hard look at their terrible fiscal policies.

0
4

[–] CervicalStrike 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Oh no what will Angela Merkel ever do if she is unable to put the entire continent of Africa on full cash welfare. I can't believe how far Germany has fallen into this sort of full blown turbo faggot mode.

0
3

[–] WombatJihad 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Seems fair. I am really not sure why we need to maintain a presence in Europe. The EU has three times the population and ten times the GDP of Russia, how exactly is Russia an existential threat to them?

1
3

[–] lurklurk 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

For western europe, it isn't. Russia would start nibbling on baltic states and Poland instantly if NATO vanished overnight. Just think for a moment what is happening in Ukraine at this very moment.

There's a very good reason for Poland and Estonia buying weapons and building up their armies after they were freed from soviet union and are about only nations besides UK and USA that meet NATO budget requirements.

0
0

[–] we_kill_creativity ago 

Just think for a moment what is happening in Ukraine at this very moment

I see that you don't know what's actually going on in Ukraine at this very moment.

The elected (very corrupt, but still, very elected) government in Keiv was thrown out by groups shown to be connected to outside influences (Soros, US "ngo's", etc.) and the people in Eastern Ukraine, who never voted for this new government (no one did, actually) said, "Uh...no, actually, we don't trust them, we don't like them, and we sure as hell never voted for them, so NOPE! Big nope!"

That's why you had an actual Ukrainian army march over and try to force them to be cool with it. I have no doubt there were Russian special forces there by this time, but that only makes sense since, you know, it's right on their border, but there was never really a huge Russian military force there.

The people in Eastern Ukraine, or the Donbass, identify more as Russian in the first place, and they have many more ties to Russia as they are geographically closer to it, than they are to Kiev, where the coup they never voted for took place.

Of course, it would also be wise to consider the ancient history of the Russian people (including the Ukrainians), such as, the fact that the Russian people actually started at Kiev, known as "The Kievin Russ", but that would take me a lot of time to explain.

0
11

[–] elcob32 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Is it just me, or does it seem like we should moderate our commitments regardless.

0
4

[–] redgoldblue 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

for germany in particular. in 100 years germany will be a province of the caliphate. as such, i dont think it is worth sprending a single drop of blood to defend.

and tbh, america was made ascendant by letting all the retarded old world nations kill eachother then cleaning up afterward.

0
4

[–] Sev_ 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is Mattis and Trump being far more diplomatic that I would. 3 different presidential administrations have been telling NATO members that they need to meet the defense spending requirements. It's time to approach it differently.

Attn: NATO Countries - You have 2 fiscal years to increase your defense spending to 2% of GDP as required by NATO. Failure to meet and maintain this requirement will result in the USA considering you to no longer be a member state, and will trigger the cessation of all US arms sales, service and support (logistical and otherwise) for your country until you go through full membership re-application and meet all requirements. End of memo.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Sev_ 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I don't have an issue with NATO as a mutual defense and intelligence sharing organization, which is what it was started as, and is supposed to be. It's not though. Somehow it's become the "America will handle our national defense while we spend our own money internally on social projects and infrastructure" club, and a platform to push social and economic changes to other states via "peer pressure".

I don't have an issue with the UN being an international body in which member states can discuss issues, assist in relieving natural humanitarian crises as a group across national lines (famines, floods, diseases, natural disasters, etc) , or act as an independent tribunal for obviously heinous things like genocide (by "black balling" truely offensive non-member states).

I do not think it has any business being an international lawmaking body, pushing social or economic policy on members, making loans or being the world police and interfering in every little civil war and conflict around the globe. I think all members of such an organization should have an equal share in both the responsibilities and obligations (financial and otherwise) - notice I said equal, not equitable - just because the US is bigger and wealthier does not mean we should be shelling out more cash, equipment, soldiers.

0
1

[–] 8061522? 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The EU has been cutting military budgets because they assumed that the US will save them anyway. This has weakened the EU.

0
1

[–] burns29 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Mattis is delivering the message that Europe needs to arm for the Theologic war with Islam.